# "The p*d*p****'s Guide to Love and Pleasure" - Amazon's sale tirade



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

> Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, sparked user anger over its sale of a book that bills itself as a guide for pedophiles.
> 
> “The p*d*p****’s Guide to Love and Pleasure,” written and published by Phillip R. Greaves, has been on sale since Oct. 28, according to Seattle-based Amazon, which defended its decision to sell the book.
> 
> ...



If anything, this is just going to increase demand for the book.  Well played Amazon.

UPDATE: The same author apparently has ANOTHER book of the SAME NATURE and some of the SAME CONTENT that is up for sale on Amazon.  Read about it here


----------



## Wolfarus (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, technically it -would- be censorship if they pulled it. But if enough pressure is applied by the right people/groups, they'd prob do it anyway.

Wonder if there's a chapter in the book titled "picking out the right van" and "after halloween candy sales : prime time to stock up"


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

I didn't hear all of the censorship calls when the OJ book was pulled


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Nov 10, 2010)

... 

The fuck?


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 10, 2010)

Hope it makes it's way to Oprah. Over 9000 penises.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Nov 10, 2010)

I wonder if Zaxxon has his copy yet?


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

@HB: According to Amazon, it's the 158221st best selling Kindle product.



926 Reviews and all I see are "Disgusting, needs to be pulled, promotes pedophilia)

Alot of reviews considering the book has only been out for one day  Who all read I wonder?


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Nov 10, 2010)

I guess a more appropriate question is, "How many copies did Zaxxon order, I wonder?".


----------



## Juno (Nov 10, 2010)

I'll rep whoever downloads it and reports back on its content.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 10, 2010)

Don't sell books about murder, or rape, or genocide, or suicide, or drugs, or sex, or death, or............ anything else and then I'll be a happy camper :33


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 10, 2010)

Delete this thread before some people in this forums who might be interested in that material see it.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 10, 2010)

it's worth reading just for academic purposes.  u can't deny u r curious to know just what the message of this book is :S


----------



## Charizard (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm okay with this.


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 10, 2010)

.... Take it the fuck down. Take it down now.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 10, 2010)

Free Speech FTL!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 10, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> Delete this thread before some people in this forums who might be interested in that material see it.



having knowledge doesn't equate to "will use knowledge for evil" , but u know so little , so i don't expect u to understand.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 10, 2010)

FapperWocky said:


> having knowledge doesn't equate to "will use knowledge for evil" , but u know so little , so i don't expect u to understand.



In my not so serious post I don't claim that having knowledge equals to using knowledge for evil. The "u know so little" shit is just additional stupidity from your part.


----------



## Xion (Nov 10, 2010)

I love the 500 soccer moms that "reviewed" it and said that they would never buy another thing from Amazon for selling a book they disagree with.

Free speech isn't worth a dime if it's not protected.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 10, 2010)

Xion said:


> I love the 500 soccer moms that "reviewed" it and said that they would never buy another thing from Amazon for selling a book they disagree with.
> 
> Free speech isn't worth a dime if it's not protected.



stay at home moms will be the downfall of society.  especially if the just stay at home with one kid, cmon, they got nothing to do!


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Nov 10, 2010)

If Amazon takes it down they are pussies. They already said they won't, they can't backpedal now or they'll lose face.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Nov 10, 2010)

How did the book get past the publisher?
Is he/she a pedo too?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 10, 2010)

could be self published, i would self publish if i was to write something, cause i doubt i'd get a publisher for my writing :S


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Nov 10, 2010)

You can publish anything yourself on Amazon now. I actually published something on there, though it wasn't about pedophiles.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 10, 2010)

It is self published.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 10, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> You can publish anything yourself on Amazon now. I actually published something on there, though it wasn't about pedophiles.



was it a picture book


----------



## Elias (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm waiting for your review Mider.


----------



## Sands (Nov 10, 2010)

> Amazon rose $3.06 to $173.33 at 4 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading.



Well played Amazon, 
And it'll only go higher


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Nov 10, 2010)

FapperWocky said:


> was it a picture book


 No, but it should've been. 

I'mma publish more stuff on there.  Want to go in on a joint venture?


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

If I had a Kindle I probably would have already downloaded this.



Red Queen said:


> How did the book get past the publisher?
> Is he/she a pedo too?



Are criminal therapists criminals themselves?  

You don't have to be a p*d*p**** to write this book.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Nov 10, 2010)

lol wut


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

lol All of the boycott comments and "I was molested"


----------



## Basilikos (Nov 10, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> I wonder if Zaxxon has his copy yet?


Don't forget Yokai.


----------



## Sora (Nov 10, 2010)




----------



## Sasuke Luver (Nov 10, 2010)

so........whats next? How to rape walmart employees?

 As much as I laughed at the reviews, people don't understand that they're helping this book sell with all their complaining


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 10, 2010)

Red Queen said:


> lol wut



They're either.

A) A troll.
B) An author trying to gain status so his other books will be looked at.
C) The obvious answer.
D) All of the above.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 10, 2010)

I wonder if this will have overall negative or positive consequences for Amazon.



Lionheart said:


> They're either.
> 
> A) A troll.
> B) An author trying to gain status so his other books will be looked at.
> ...






After reading through discussions in Amazon and threads there, for the last minutes, I found this: 

So the dude seems to be both a p*d*p**** and in favor of adults having sex with children that supposedly "give consent". And of course his comments that real pedophiles never do any other type of rape than statutory rape. 

I also noted his typos. Anyway, it would been better if he had not received so much attention. He seems the real deal and not very smart.


----------



## Sasuke Luver (Nov 10, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> I wonder if this will have overall negative or positive consequences for Amazon.



probably both. those that threaten to leave, will leave the site while all the publicity on the book might attract more customers and make more sales.


----------



## Shɑnɑ (Nov 10, 2010)

_Step one: Get a life._

This is a shameless thing to sell, they'll lose a lot more sales keeping it up than they would taking it down.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 10, 2010)

What's the big deal here? If you're asking to have all content of this kind banned, the simple answer is to stfo and gtfo due to freedom of speech as this doesn't promote hatred/propaganda/etc. Finding the material disgusting is irrelevant and just a cop out. As to censorship, that's pretty much the companies choices most of the time. So if Amazon wants to drop it,they can or whatever. No big deal. With or without this book, the number of sex crimes isn't likely to increase or decrease.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 10, 2010)

Considering Amazon is a corporation, that chooses under which standards or lack of standards, to allow books to be sold, I guess my view is that if people strongly disagree with Amazon's policy and want to not purchase things from them anymore, it is there decision to make. Which is kind of different than a previous view I had on the issue. However Amazon is right that they are not legally forced to ban it. But they are those who decide what kind of books they will allow to be published or if they will allow everything to be published. And if a Consumer disagrees with their decisions, he can act accordingly. Still too much attention is probably counterproductive.


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 10, 2010)

Ugh. Fat ugly white guy pic. Put that shit in a spoiler next time son.


----------



## The_Light (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm ok with this.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

What the hell?


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 10, 2010)

Good for Amazon for not censoring it. I don't like the book, so I won't buy it. But I'm not a dick that thinks that my opinion is a universal law.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm gonna get it to see what the hell it says about children and pleasures.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> I'm gonna get it to see what the hell it says about children and pleasures.



In the bellow link you can see some of the (immoral and disgusting in my humble opinion) opinions of the writer about his views on pedophilia and sex with children.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> In the bellow link you can see some of the (immoral and disgusting in my humble opinion) opinions of the writer about his views on pedophilia and sex with children.



I'm gonna be honest here...I just misread your post three times xD
I understand the post now.

I'm gonna read them now. *goes to page*


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

Author's comments prove he's either a dumbass or troll.  Less enticed to read the book now.


----------



## Miss Fortune (Nov 10, 2010)

Is it wrong that I, a teenage girl, want this book?


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Nov 10, 2010)

Miss Fortune said:


> Is it wrong that I, a teenage girl, want this book?



Someone has a Shōtarō complex.....


----------



## DremolitoX (Nov 10, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> But I'm not a dick that thinks that my opinion is a universal law.



I am. The author should be put down.

This isn't about free speech retards. If the book contains what I think it might (seduction, baiting, etc) then it's simply malicious content that would be rapists shouldn't get a hand on.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 10, 2010)

Miss Fortune said:


> Is it wrong that I, a teenage girl, want this book?


 It matters for why you want it.

Based on author comments, one possible reason for wanting it is 
If you need poorly written, ineloquent, stupid and unconvincing arguments to convince you that having sex with a 60+ years old who wants to have sex with you, is better than having sex with people your age. Yeah bad idea. 

A more normal reason is to get it to laugh at its stupidity. Others manage to do this with poorly written books but I don't...


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

DremolitoX said:


> I am. The author should be put down.
> 
> This isn't about free speech retards. If the book contains what I think it might (seduction, baiting, etc) then it's simply malicious content that would be rapists shouldn't get a hand on.



There are people who will argue with you that Pedophilia is an okay thing and that children can be lovers regardless of age.

I am not lying. There are people like that...


----------



## Ceria (Nov 10, 2010)

i wonder if it's possible to get the original copies of OJ's book


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 10, 2010)

The most offensive part of this article is the reminder of people rating and reviewing books they haven't actually read.

You need to stop doing that shit.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> The most offensive part of this article is the reminder of people rating and reviewing books they haven't actually read.
> 
> You need to stop doing that shit.



I don't think they need to read it to know what a book about _pedophilia_, says. :/


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> I don't think they need to read it to know what a book about _pedophilia_, says. :/



 How can you possibly review and rate any book without reading it?

It's the principle of the thing. It's an abuse of the ratings system that cheapens the site.


But then again, you would be the authority on holding strong opinions about books you've never read..being a fan of the damn Bible and all.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> How can you possibly review and rate any book without reading it?
> 
> It's the principle of the thing. It's an abuse of the ratings system that cheapens the site.
> 
> ...



Because a book preaching Pedophilia and talking about children being lovers doesn't NEED to be read to know what it contains.

Oh noes! Pilaf just attacked my religion (again)? Dear Lord what will I do? 
*cuts wrists*

Oh wait...I don't care what you think


----------



## Le Pirate (Nov 10, 2010)

Good job Amazon for protecting basic rights.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Hondo Pirate said:


> Good job Amazon for protecting basic rights.



Yes, because empowering or teaching child rapists on how to do it better and quicker, is just so basic rights.

Let us harm the children so Pedos can be well, pedos. 

(Ignore this if I just misunderstood your post... :/ )


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 10, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Don't sell books about murder, or rape, or genocide, or suicide, or drugs, or sex, or death, or............ anything else and then I'll be a happy camper :33



umm..

they do sell such books.


----------



## Aokiji (Nov 10, 2010)

pedophilia=child molestation.

They're just synonyms. 

Post not related btw.


----------



## Magic (Nov 10, 2010)

Someone linked me to this thread.......why would I be interested in such reading material?

However I could do a psychology report on the subject, maybe I should buy a copy..?


----------



## DremolitoX (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> There are people who will argue with you that Pedophilia is an okay thing and that children can be lovers regardless of age.
> 
> I am not lying. There are people like that...



You don't know half of the story. Try lurking anontalk.


----------



## ninjaneko (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> There are people who will argue with you that Pedophilia is an okay thing and that children can be lovers regardless of age.
> 
> I am not lying. There are people like that...


I read part of a book on the subject and the researcher went to child porn forums and needless to say, the comments were...something. Apparently it's typical that posters who complain, criticise that the "child didn't look like they were enjoying it," or posts about feeling guilty, etc. would be put down or told something like, "if you don't like it, don't watch it/leave."

Apparently there are similar sentiments in the sex tourism trade.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 10, 2010)

I love Amazon's high-minded rhetoric about free speech.

Didn't ever stop them from pulling plenty of books before. Remember OJ's infamous "If I Did It, Here's How" book?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 10, 2010)

Heh, with this thread it looks like the book is getting free advertising to its target audience.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Nov 10, 2010)

I know I'd buy a book.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

DremolitoX said:


> You don't know half of the story. Try lurking anontalk.



Anontalk?

Pedos live all around in KY. Fayette and Richmond, as I've seen, have loads of them. One of these people here, which I highlighted, actually tried to take a girl while I was watching. 

(As you can see, number 8's house, contains more than one Offender.)


Good thing we moved 



> I read part of a book on the subject and the researcher went to child porn forums and needless to say, the comments were...something. Apparently it's typical that posters who complain, criticise that the "child didn't look like they were enjoying it," or posts about feeling guilty, etc. would be put down or told something like, "if you don't like it, don't watch it/leave."
> 
> Apparently there are similar sentiments in the sex tourism trade.


The comments on this book, or another? Sorry, its a bit late and I'm really tired >.<

Amazon needs to remove it. I've seen so many other books (heard about them from a few of my friends) be removed. If they don't remove this shite, then golly gee, I'm never ever buying from them again.


----------



## Ice Cream (Nov 10, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> The most offensive part of this article is the reminder of people rating and reviewing books they haven't actually read.
> 
> You need to stop doing that shit.



There's some disturbing sample text of the book posted on recent news
sites so I think they some merit to complain about the material.

It seems as though he wrote the book for attention from an
interview with abcnews 



> "I can see where they would come to that kind of conclusion and to a certain extent I wanted that kind of notoriety to effect the book. ... I wanted it to effect sales."



Amazon has announced that they're not removing the book so people just need to ignore it and move on. 

All of the negative reviews have sparked interest and unneeded publicity. =/



> When TechCrunch wrote about the book just six hours ago, it was the 158,221st best-selling Kindle ebooks.
> 
> But as of this writing, it's catapulted to 146th among all paid Kindle ebooks. According to Amazon's "Mover's and Shaker's" board, that's an increase of over 101,000%in less than a day. Even as Mommy bloggers, tech bloggers and Twitter users call for an Amazon boycott over the title, The p*d*p****'s Guide to Love and Pleasure is selling like it was just announced as an Oprah Book Club selection.


----------



## ninjaneko (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> The comments on this book, or another? Sorry, its a bit late and I'm really tired >.<


No, it was another book, more research oriented. Not like Jiraiya-research. The other kind.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

Okay the book seems to be a handbook for how Pedophiles should act as to not attract attention. 

Anderson Cooper brings up a good point, one that Jello and I brought up earlier.  The OJ book wasn't sold by Amazon and they have a strict policy against porn (which is legal).  Dr. Phil McGraw describes it as a 'loose, non-consistent' policy.  Didn't know the story was going to get this big


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 10, 2010)

I changed my mind after looking quickly and seeing the book is literally meant to be a guide on how to commit sex crimes Edit: how to commit them better I mean (assuming the reviewers aren't lying...) instead of just having a vacous title generically related to pedophila.

Also this



Cthulhu-versailles said:


> The world of cyberspace is fraught with criminals, and many law abiding citizens are struggling to apply existing laws to the web.
> 
> For example, we see SQL Injection Hacking Attacks on video all published under the guise of helping the security administrator understand the methods used by criminals to steal data, but with complete disregard for the criminals who will use the instructions to commit crimes.  Many of these "researchers" hide behind the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), saying that it gives them the right to reverse engineer software, find vulnerabilities and broadcast them to the public at-large.
> 
> ...


----------



## Netorie (Nov 10, 2010)

This disturbs me greatly.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> I changed my mind after looking quickly and seeing the _*book is literally meant to be a guide on how to commit sex crimes Edit: how to commit them better I mean (assuming the reviewers aren't lying...) instead of just having a vacous title generically related to pedophila.*_


As I said :0

Yet people are praising Amazon for "giving them their rights!". 


 The world really is goin' down the pooper...


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

And all of the male anime fans are now saved since they never had no chance of getting adult pussy anyway!


----------



## Phunin (Nov 10, 2010)

Yeah, that book should be left up for the sake of avoiding censorship. The author probably wrote the book knowing it is a controversial topic. Controversial topics = money makers and this press, albeit negative, is definitely helping that.


----------



## soulnova (Nov 10, 2010)

Are you kidding me amazon???  You pulled down some books about people speaking out against scientology! and this is not worthy of take it down!!?


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

soulnova said:


> Are you kidding me amazon???  You pulled down some books about people speaking out against scientology! and this is not worthy of take it down!!?



Amazon just wants Pedos to engage and hurt children. Its Pedo's rights... 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Encase I still suck at sarcasm, that was sarcasm. lol


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 10, 2010)

soulnova said:


> Are you kidding me amazon???  You pulled down some books about people speaking out against scientology! and this is not worthy of take it down!!?



The Church of Happyology employs many rabid lawyers. People enraged about child abuse don't.

In short, Amazon.com is a bunch of pussies.


----------



## Horu (Nov 10, 2010)

And somewhere, lulz are being had.

Looks like the only thing amazon needs to censor are reviews from people who haven't read the book or used the product.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Horu said:


> And somewhere, lulz are being had.
> 
> *Looks like the only thing amazon needs to censor are reviews from people who haven't read the book or used the product.*



Are you kidding me?

Do you know what this book is telling Pedos to do? How to rape a child better and not get caught.


----------



## Horu (Nov 10, 2010)

No I don't know what it's telling anybody to do, since I haven't read it.

And likely won't.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

I doubt anyone has read and finished this book already, and if they have they probably haven't commented on Amazon yet.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

If the pedophiles here wanna bitch and stick up for this man talking shit about free speech, then these reviewers who haven't read the book have a right to talk about how much they deplore the idea of this book!

This man's face deserves to be shown on every news channel as well as his home address so *loving *parents everywhere will know that his man gets his rocks off on fucking children!


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Horu said:


> No I don't know what it's telling anybody to do, since I haven't read it.
> 
> And likely won't.



Well guess what it says.

Kissing, fondling and sexually touching a child is okay. And guess what else? It says that a child wants to be taken into a sexual relationship regardless of age.

EDIT:
They removed it! They removed it! 
*CUT*

Or, Pedos heard about it from CNN and want to learn how to rape a child better and it loaded down the servers.


----------



## Stunna (Nov 10, 2010)

$5 says that when someone actually reads this book, it'll be a guide on how to achieve world peace.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Stunna said:


> $5 says that when someone actually reads this book, it'll be a guide on how to achieve world peace.



Its already been read. The guy on CNN read it.

Doesn't contain anything like that.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> EDIT:
> They removed it! They removed it!
> 
> Or, Pedos heard about it from CNN and want to learn how to rape a child better and it loaded down the servers.



Now *that's* what the fuck I'm talking about!


I didn't even bother clicking the original link!

Thank you, you beautiful people out there who got the link removed from amazon!


----------



## Stunna (Nov 10, 2010)

Oh. Well I'll be darned.

*pays $5 and slowly walks out*


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Nesha said:


> Now *that's* what the fuck I'm talking about!
> 
> 
> I didn't even bother clicking the original link!
> ...



Nope, hasn't been removed. Pedos were clickin' it like made and it loaded down the servers...

NO ONE CLICK IT! HE AND AMAZON ARE GETTING MONEY EVERYTIME YOU CLICK IT! DO NOT CLICK THE LINK~

Nesha, remove the link from your post.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Nope, hasn't been removed. Pedos were clickin' it like made and it loaded down the servers...
> 
> NO ONE CLICK IT! HE AND AMAZON ARE GETTING MONEY EVERYTIME YOU CLICK IT! DO NOT CLICK THE LINK~
> 
> Nesha, remove the link from your post.



Are you for real?


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Nesha said:


> Are you for real?



I'm for real. Its still up. The servers crashed because so many people were clicking the link.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

I wonder what will happen to the books that have already been ordered?  I'm sure they'll be a site that will sell them within the next 24 hours.



Nesha said:


> Now *that's* what the fuck I'm talking about!
> 
> 
> I didn't even bother clicking the original link!
> ...



If you didn't click the link to even check out the book why are you even celebrating?  

btw, the "guy on CNN" got his info from a detailed comment on the book, dunno if it was a troll or not.

Still not sure what the book is exactly about other than what I said earlier.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 10, 2010)

> This is my SECOND review for this book... my first one was deleted by Amazon. I have contacted NUMEROUS news agencies, as well as the FBI. I have contacted Oprah, John Walsh and Diane sawyer. I will be on this until it is taken down. And As a customer of Amazon I will no longer be one, as soon as this is taken down I will delete my account. And I am going to make sure NONE of my family and friends will buy from you either! SHAME ON YOU for listing SUCH FILTH!!
> Help other customers find th



Makes me crack up every single time :rofl


----------



## Horu (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Well guess what it says.
> 
> Kissing, fondling and sexually touching a child is okay. And guess what else? It says that a child wants to be taken into a sexual relationship regardless of age.


And I suppose you got that from the source? Before they removed it?

The problem is simply that, because the anti-pedo hordes are so fear-driven, they also become the most irrational and unreasonable, and thus the most untrustworthy. Any subtle satire or trolling jobs in the composition of the book would easily be overlooked and lost to the frothing burn-the-witch mentality of its readers. Not that there really were any readers anyway, and I'll never know first-hand so I'll just leave it at that.

Regarding amazon, the point is that the *review* index is not for *discussion*. Amazon has *discussion* forums for *dicussion*, and a *review* index for *reviews*. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out which one opinions go in. And once they're in the right place, people can gripe all they want.

Honestly, I've been saying amazon needs to enforce a "reviews in reviews" policy for years. Many people are quite sick of seeing 1-star "reviews" because somebody's package got lost, or they found the product cheaper somewhere else, or they didn't like the customer service. This is just one more case in a line of probably hundreds of thousands of "review" misuses that should be corrected.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

> And I suppose you got that from the source? Before they removed it?
> 
> The problem is simply that, because the anti-pedo hordes are so fear-driven, they also become the most irrational and unreasonable, and thus the most untrustworthy. Any subtle satire or trolling jobs in the composition of the book would easily be overlooked and lost to the frothing burn-the-witch mentality of its readers. Not that there really were any readers anyway, and I'll never know first-hand so I'll just leave it at that.
> 
> ...


Wasn't removed...the servers crashed because of activity.

Seriously? Are you serious? Irrational? Unreasonable? Dear Lord...He's telling Pedos how to rape children. 

And no! Not from the page, from the guy who read it on CNN. :/



Mider T said:


> I wonder what will happen to the books that have already been ordered?  I'm sure they'll be a site that will sell them within the next 24 hours.
> If you didn't click the link to even check out the book why are you even celebrating?
> btw, the "guy on CNN" got his info from a detailed comment on the book, dunno if it was a troll or not.
> Still not sure what the book is exactly about other than what I said earlier.



She doesn't have to click it to know a book about raping child is about raping children. SHe was smart for not clicking it and giving them views.



> This is my SECOND review for this book... my first one was deleted by Amazon. I have contacted NUMEROUS news agencies, as well as the FBI. I have contacted Oprah, John Walsh and Diane sawyer. I will be on this until it is taken down. And As a customer of Amazon I will no longer be one, as soon as this is taken down I will delete my account. And I am going to make sure NONE of my family and friends will buy from you either! SHAME ON YOU for listing SUCH FILTH!!


I will no longer be buying from Amazon as well.

Pieces of garbage allowing a book telling Pedos how to rape with out being caught.


----------



## Platinum (Nov 10, 2010)

I wonder what subject material it covers. Probably shit like "How to build a proper rape dungeon"


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

We don't know if the book is about raping children or not, unless one goes through every single review to look for an actual review of the book itself.  Meaning they read it.  Heck even the guest on CNN hadn't read it, but he did find a semi-serious review.  Summed up he said something like 





> Okay the book seems to be a handbook for how Pedophiles should act as to not attract attention



And she said she didn't click the original link, I thought she meant the link first posted to the book (before the servers crashed)


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

Mider T said:


> I wonder what will happen to the books that have already been ordered?  I'm sure they'll be a site that will sell them within the next 24 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I apologize if I wasn't allowed to celebrate the site taking the book down when I thought they took the book down.

Are you interested in buying a copy?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 10, 2010)

I love the moral crusaders on Amazon. They got Rapeplay removed, 5 years after its release.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

@Nesha:  I don't care enough to buy it, but I'm a bit interested in what the book is actually about behind all the hollering of pedophilia.  Maybe it is, but I won't be sure until I actually go through the text myself.


----------



## Horu (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Seriously? Are you serious? Irrational? Unreasonable?
> 
> [...]
> 
> I will no longer be buying from Amazon as well.


"Irrational" and "Unreasonable" indeed.

Way to throw out the champagne with the cork, but thanks for the case-in-point.

And as long as I'm there...

*Orders some more Naruto manga volumes*


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

Mider T said:


> @Nesha:  I don't care enough to buy it, but I'm a bit interested in what the book is actually about behind all the hollering of pedophilia.  Maybe it is, but I won't be sure until I actually go through the text myself.



I'm so tempted to say something...

But I'll just say that as a aunt...I'm not interested in such filth and I hope most of you people here on NF never, *ever *procreate.


----------



## Platinum (Nov 10, 2010)

But I am laughing at Amazon trying to act like they are stark protectors of free speech. As several others have mentioned they weren't spouting this free speech shit when they removed OJ's book from their site.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

At one time Amazon sold Mein Kampf did they not?



Nesha said:


> I'm so tempted to say something...
> 
> But I'll just say that as a aunt...I'm not interested in such filth and I hope most of you people here on NF never, *ever *procreate.



  You aren't even sure what this book is about.  Behind the title this could be a story about spiders.  And even so, I ain't a p*d*p****.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

Mider T said:


> At one time Amazon sold Mein Kampf did they not?
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't even sure what this book is about.  Behind the title this could be a story about spiders.  And even so, I ain't a p*d*p****.



People have already commented on what the book is about.



Terra Branford said:


> I will no longer be buying from Amazon as well.
> 
> Pieces of garbage allowing a book telling Pedos how to rape with out being caught.



I support you in your cause. 



And just stop, you're never going to get through to these sick people here.

These are the same fucks who jack-off to 4-year-old anime girls getting fucked by 30-year-old men.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

^Pretty none of us (_pretty_ sure) in this thread are pedophiles.



Nesha said:


> People have already commented on what the book is about.



What people?  The moral crusaders on Amazon who haven't actually read the book?  If you didn't even read the link why are you believing second-hand knowledge on NF from people you know HAVEN'T read the book.  At least on Amazon there might be 1 in 500.


----------



## Ice Cream (Nov 10, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Still not sure what the book is exactly about other than what I said earlier.



Here's two paragraphs that are apparently from the
book, these are the same examples posted in other sites for negative
criticism but I'm trying to see if any major news organization can confirm it:



I'm sure there's going to be a few excerpts that will be discussed later on in the media if this becomes popular enough.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

@Horu:
You're an idiot. This guy is teaching them how to attract attention form CHILDREN! 

*=================================*

@Ice Cream:
Yup! That's what it actually says!

I just found this review:


> This is an ABSOLUTE must read for me. I have been looking EVERYWHERE for this and was about to give up hope... So many times have I just *felt ashamed because of the lack of attraction that often occurs when I'm hanging out with some of the kiddies for the first time.* I recommend this book to EVERYONE and will share it with my friends at the day care I used to work at. THANKS AGAIN!



I hope this is a troll....


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

Mider T said:


> ^Pretty none of us (_pretty_ sure) in this thread are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> What people?  The moral crusaders on Amazon who haven't actually read the book?  If you didn't even read the link why are you believing second-hand knowledge on NF from people you know HAVEN'T read the book.  At least on Amazon there might be 1 in 500.



I would rather stick by those moral crusaders than to waste 2 seconds of my life trying to read that sick shit.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 10, 2010)

Sometimes it's for the advancement of knowledge


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

Then Nesha I dunno what to say other than you shun knowledge for the easy route out.



Ice Cream said:


> Here's two paragraphs that are apparently from the
> book, these are the same examples posted in other sites for negative
> criticism but I'm trying to see if any major news organization can confirm it:



If that's the truth, then yeah shit is gross.  However my original points of 
-No outrage during the OJ book
-People knocking it before they have the full info

still stand.

Losing more interest to read it though as more and more reliable sources come.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Anyone willing to download? You can download it from the site...

The book tells the Pedos how to protect their cut fingers when  (SORRY FOR CRUDE LANGUAGE COMING UP!) fingering them, smaller condoms for little boys underage and goes on how to get away with it. Masturbate to children you have meet or met in the past....dear god.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 10, 2010)

Lol just read that link.

Nasty 

but it's his right


----------



## Horu (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> @Horu:
> You're an idiot. This guy is teaching them how to attract attention form CHILDREN!


I'm not the one passing hearsay as fact. Discussion over.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 10, 2010)

Mider T said:


> ^Pretty none of us (_pretty_ sure) in this thread are pedophiles.



Damn near 200,000 people are members of this website. You're *not *going to convince me that there isn't *one *p*d*p**** amongst them.

And I already said this in the Debate Corner that anyone who's even *remotely *interested in loli/shota is a fucking closet p*d*p**** who's using this anime forum as a fucking cover-up and for acceptance since there are other anime fans here who have similar interests.

My opinion of them isn't going to change.

And I behold! I was right about the book.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> Damn near 200,000 people are members of this website. You're *not *going to convince me that there isn't *one *p*d*p**** amongst them.
> 
> And I already said this in the Debate Corner that anyone who's even *remotely *interested in loli/shota is a fucking closet p*d*p**** who's using this anime forum as a fucking cover-up and for acceptance since there are other anime fans here who have similar interests.
> 
> ...



You need to read closer I said "*Pretty sure* none of us *in this thread* are pedophiles".

And I was never criticizing you for being right or wrong, I was knocking you selectively reading comments on this thread about opinions of amazon reviewers.  That's like the worst internet gossip ever.  Don't be weak-minded.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 11, 2010)

I think atleast one guy who posted in this thread might be a p*d*p****. Some of you know who I am talking about.


----------



## Stunna (Nov 11, 2010)

Straight up, I'm a p*d*p****.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Horu said:


> I'm not the one passing hearsay as fact. Discussion over.



Hearsay?  

Didn't you read the samples? He talks about fingering boys and not getting caught. I feel sad for you if this is how you handle a situation like this


----------



## Ice Cream (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> The book tells the Pedos how to protect their cut fingers when  (SORRY FOR CRUDE LANGUAGE COMING UP!) fingering them, smaller condoms for little boys underage and goes on how to get away with it. Masturbate to children you have meet or met in the past....dear god.



I would wait for further confirmation before denouncing anything.

The author got the attention he wanted though. 
Guess we'll see if it was worth it in the near future.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Ice Cream said:


> I would wait for further confirmation before denouncing anything.
> 
> The author got the attention he wanted though.
> Guess we'll see if it was worth it in the near future.



The dude on CNN and then now some people on Fox news (not the actually people on the show) have read the same thing from the book.

Karl Rove bought the first copy, supposedly.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 11, 2010)

Inb4 the moral crusaders try to ban Liber Chaotica for promoting Witchcraft


----------



## Basilikos (Nov 11, 2010)

> Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 22 (14 members and 8 guests)
> Basilikos, Stunna, makeoutparadise, rex1_nin, Terra Branford, MangekyoMaster, iander, Ice Cream, Wesker, Bleach, LegendaryBeauty, Gnome on Fire


Quite a crowd in here.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> The dude on CNN and then now some people on Fox news (not the actually people on the show) have read the same thing from the book.



I don't know about Fox News but the guest on Anderson Cooper did not read the book, been through this.  He read a comment that seemed serious through the trolls and a sypnosis.

*Goes to look for better outlines*
EDIT: Here's one 



> In the product description section on the book's Amazon page, Greaves writes, misspellings included,"This is my attempt to make p*d*p**** situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught.”


Misspellings included



> John Rosemond is a local psychologist. He's counseled children who were the victims of pedophiles...and he says the book doesn't surprise him because the p*d*p**** community has been "actively organizing" for the last decade or more. “They have seen the homosexual community acquire their gender rights and how they have done it. And they are going to use the same argument that pedophilia is part of a normal spectrum of human sexual responses and desires."


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Mider T said:


> I don't know about Fox News but the guest on Anderson Cooper did not read the book, been through this.  He read a comment that seemed serious through the trolls and a sypnosis.
> 
> *Goes to look for better outlines*



Which dude are you talking about for CNN? 

People (commenters) on Fox say the Fox people have read it.

I doubt TechCrunch would lie about something like this...and if it were a lie or didn't have proof or evidence behind it, it wouldn't have been posted.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 11, 2010)

Basilikos said:


> Quite a crowd in here.
> 
> Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 22 (14 members and 8 guests)
> Basilikos, Stunna, makeoutparadise, rex1_nin, Terra Branford, MangekyoMaster, iander, Ice Cream, Wesker, Bleach, LegendaryBeauty, Gnome on Fire



And 18 are closet pedophiles.


----------



## Stunna (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm openly a p*d*p****.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> And 18 are closet pedophiles.



Not me.


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Stunna said:


> I'm openly a p*d*p****.



You're a christian so I believe this.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Not me.



Neither am I.


----------



## Circe (Nov 11, 2010)

...I want this book.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> And 18 are closet pedophiles.



You would think being a p*d*p**** in the closet would be quite...uncomfortable. 

Unless they have one of those spacious closets.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 11, 2010)

Mist Puppet said:


> You would think being a p*d*p**** in the closet would be quite...uncomfortable.
> 
> Unless they have one of those spacious closets.



Speaking from experience?


----------



## Stunna (Nov 11, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> You're a christian so I believe this.


I think you're thinking of catholic priests.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Which dude are you talking about for CNN?
> 
> People (commenters) on Fox say the Fox people have read it.
> 
> I doubt TechCrunch would lie about something like this...and if it were a lie or didn't have proof or evidence behind it, it wouldn't have been posted.



Dunno his name, he was guest for Anderson Cooper.  The program was going off just as typed the comment about what he actually read.


Who read it over at Fox News?  I don't have the pleasure of watching now.

I found this interesting 





> This isn't the first time Amazon has sold material that promotes illegal activity. It is currently accepting pre-orders for the hardcover version of "I Am the Market: How to Smuggle Cocaine by the Ton, in Five Easy Lessons" by Luca Rastello.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> Speaking from experience?



Hell no. 

I would never use a closet.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Hm...I don't know if I was watching Anderson Cooper...

On Fox, Karl Rove bought the first copy. Also, supposedly, Glen has one as well...and no one big on the site. Just members. Some of the comments are being removed or not approved though...


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

What has Karl Rove said about it so far?  Everything he's said about it?  Even though I think the author's a troll I want to hear some confirmed proof.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 11, 2010)

Mist Puppet said:


> Hell no.
> 
> I would never use a closet.



I see. Well you did admit to being a loli fan.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Mider T said:


> What has Karl Rove said about it so far?  Everything he's said about it?  Even though I think the author's a troll I want to hear some confirmed proof.



I don't know yet. People are saying he bought the first copy and bought another for Glenn. Maybe its not true...


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Stunna said:


> I think you're thinking of catholic priests.



Yea ok so make me admit I fail in life much k?  _runs off like a lil girl crying._


----------



## Mist Puppet (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> I see. Well you did admit to being a loli fan.



I hope you realize I'm kidding.


----------



## Horu (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> I feel sad for you if this is how you handle a situation like this


What, by staying calm and rational while waiting for an objective source? I'm sure people like me will cause the downfall of society.

And no, I had no confirmed accurate samples when I posted earlier and I didn't go out of my way to find any. I never defended any level of serious approach to the subject matter whatsoever either. I'm not interested in reading serious or satirical treatises of such things, so I simply don't comment in the first place. All of this had to do with approaching amazon reviews and distribution with a touch of reason and levelheadedness, nothing more. Otherwise, I suspected a troll, but didn't know for certain and didn't care to find out by purchasing the book. That is all.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Nov 11, 2010)

So is this book the real deal or just some satire with some eye-catching title?


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 11, 2010)

Mist Puppet said:


> I hope you realize I'm kidding.



Why would someone joke about something as serious as pedophilia? Pedophiles should be eradicated from this planet. The world's better off without them.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Mist Puppet said:


> So is this book the real deal or just some satire with some eye-catching title?



From the samples, the reviews on Amazon, Forums who have bought the book and the commenters on CNN and Fox, they have read what that site said was in the book...



Horu said:


> What, by staying calm and rational while waiting for an objective source? I'm sure people like me will cause the downfall of society.


Objective source? The author himself tells you what it is about. Pedophiles themselves made reviews about how the book helped them get attention from children.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> Why would someone joke about something as serious as pedophilia? Pedophiles should be eradicated from this planet. The world's better off without them.



Because this is the internet.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> Why would someone joke about something as serious as pedophilia?



Because in this particular case, I felt like making a joke, since the circumstances were amusing. 

I even added a "" smilie there for you. Should have ringed a "Oh ha he might not be serious" bell in your head. 



> Pedophiles should be eradicated from this planet. The world's better off without them.



Well, okay then. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

I wonder what Elizabeth Smart thinks about this book....


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 11, 2010)

I wonder how many of those crusaders like priests or MJ


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Probably none considering they are attacking a *p*d*p***** enabler who is teaching other Pedos how to rape children....


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Meh honestly I don't agree with this book, but at the sametime man is entitled to freedom of speech.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Meh honestly I don't agree with this book, but at the sametime man is entitled to freedom of speech.



Not if he's advocating breaking the law and raping children....


----------



## DremolitoX (Nov 11, 2010)

Mider T said:


> ^Pretty none of us (_pretty_ sure) in this thread are pedophiles.


Horu. 


Narutofann12 said:


> I think atleast one guy who posted in this thread might be a p*d*p****. Some of you know who I am talking about.


It's horu right?


Terra Branford said:


> Not me.





Nesha said:


> Neither am I.



Most people who are against homosexuality will fervently deny themselves to be homos. I wonder if it's the same for pedophiles?


----------



## Bleach (Nov 11, 2010)

Communist Manifesto anyone?


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Not if he's advocating breaking the law and raping children....



It's not really telling people to do, as opposed to what to do. It's not against the law to tell someone to practice safe and pleasurable sex. But man that shit is gross.


----------



## KFC (Nov 11, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> If Amazon takes it down they are pussies. They already said they won't, they can't backpedal now or they'll lose face.



Lose face in what? The thugalicious, cut-throat life of online sales?

Anyway, from the looks of things, the book's gone, since none of the links about it on Amazon's site work. ()


----------



## Yōkai (Nov 11, 2010)

Fuck whoever wrote this book

he stole my idea


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> It's not really telling people to do, as opposed to what to do. It's not against the law to tell someone to practice safe and pleasurable sex. But man that shit is gross.



Yea, if the samples are right and the commenters who have read it aren't lying, he's telling them to do it, but do it safely so you as a Pedo, doesn't get a HIV or give an HIV.


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Which makes it not against the law. it's against the law (in some states in the US) for prostitution. But it's not against the law to tell a hooker to suggest a condom during sex.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Nov 11, 2010)

Ten bucks says the FBI struck a deal with Amazon and is getting the names and addresses of every single person who orders that book.

Anyone who actually buys that thing at a place where they're required to give out personal information is an idiot.

Oh wait, we're talking about pedos. That explains it.

And Miller test says this isn't protected under the First Amendment, so the free speech tirade goes out the window.


----------



## GodOfAzure (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm more amazed by all the people who support the idea of taking it down (not that it matters anymore since most links are currently inactive) are accusing others who support "free speech" of being closet pedophiles for not being up in arms over the content of the book.

Best example:


> No matter how distasteful and wrong you think this book is (and it is both of those things), it is protected speech. Censorship is ALWAYS more obscene than the material being censored. Now, Amazon is a private business, not the government, it's entirely up to them to decide what they will sell, and it probably makes more business sense to pull it, but the material itself is not illegal and SHOULD NOT BE. It is not a crime to talk about, even advocate for, things that are currently illegal. The test to see if you are a true supporter of freedom is cases like this.
> 
> Again; the act of censorship is always more obscene than that material which would be censored.





> Why would you want to read about abusing a child. You are probably a p*d*p**** yourself on well on your way. Think about it!


----------



## Subarashii (Nov 11, 2010)

Finally, a book I can appreciate.
Now I'll finally know how to pleasure a pre-pubescent boy who cannot even physically ejaculate. 

I don't see the point if pedophilia is illegal.  It's like a guide on how to successfully murder someone.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Which makes it not against the law. it's against the law (in some states in the US) for prostitution. But it's not against the law to tell a hooker to suggest a condom during sex.



That's not what this book is telling them. Its telling them to rape children, cover it up, hide evidence and get away with it.


----------



## Casyle (Nov 11, 2010)

Looks like they took the book down, as the links no longer work. 

I'd like to say I'm not shocked by the number of people here on NF squeeling free-speech, but I am. I'm a firm believer in non-censorship as much as possible, but some things just cross the line, like selling a book to help pedophiles become better pedophiles.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Casyle said:


> Looks like they took the book down, as the links no longer work.
> 
> I'd like to say I'm not shocked by the number of people here on NF squeeling free-speech, but I am. I'm a firm believer in non-censorship as much as possible, but some things just cross the line, like selling a book to help pedophiles become better pedophiles.



The links go on and off because of server overloads....


I agree. This goes far beyond free-speech and what it was meant to be. Free-speech doesn't include making a guide on raping children.


----------



## dummy plug (Nov 11, 2010)

well how it got printed and published in the first place is beyond me


----------



## PoinT_BlanK (Nov 11, 2010)

Wow            ..


----------



## Munak (Nov 11, 2010)

Do they really need a guide for that?

Watch some moeshit.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 11, 2010)

Wow this is even brewing up a shit storm on NF


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 11, 2010)

GodOfAzure said:


> I'm more amazed by all the people who support the idea of taking it down (not that it matters anymore since most links are currently inactive) are accusing others who support "free speech" of being closet pedophiles for not being up in arms over the content of the book.



I guess this is directed at me.

Allow me to say it again:

Anyone who supports this shit *is *a fucking closet p*d*p****. I hope you never have children. You and anyone else who supports this is sick.

"Free speech" my ass.

If this ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), child-chasing bastard has a right to talk about how to properly fuck a child, them damnit, according to "free speech", me and and every intelligent person has a right to speak out against it.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> I guess this is directed at me.
> 
> Allow me to say it again:
> 
> Anyone who supports this shit *is *a fucking closet p*d*p****. I hope you never have children. You and anyone else who supports this is sick.



That's like saying anyone who did not support Terry Jone's Quran burning day was a Muslim.

I'm sure the FBI is going to follow people who buy this book though.


----------



## zuul (Nov 11, 2010)

That guy should be jailed. He is not only promoting child sexual abuses, but implies he has already raped children.

A nice several millions dollars fine against amazone would be nice too.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 11, 2010)

Bleach said:


> That's like saying anyone who did not support Terry Jone's Quran burning day was a Muslim.
> 
> I'm sure the FBI is going to follow people who buy this book though.



I didn't support it and I'm not a Muslim.

This man is promoting raping children.

Do I need to repeat myself? The two situations are *very *different.


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Nov 11, 2010)

this shit... is whack.


----------



## Alexdhamp (Nov 11, 2010)

What the hell?


----------



## Bleach (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> I didn't support it and I'm not a Muslim.
> 
> This man is promoting raping children.
> 
> Do I need to repeat myself? The two situations are *very *different.



Supporting the book and supporting the right of the book are two different things.

"The book is technically protected under the first amendment because it does not include illustrations."

And I think Amazon removed it from their website.

Amazon still sells many books that are bad like this one. Books that tell you how to smuggle tons of cocaine or a book that tries to exploit homosexuality in kids and adults. Tons of shit like this is around.


----------



## Ice Cream (Nov 11, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Supporting the book and supporting the right of the book are two different things.
> 
> "The book is technically protected under the first amendment because it does not include illustrations."
> 
> ...



Yeah, I just saw it on CNN and they reported that Amazon has removed
the book.

The previous examples from the text I posted earlier was an accurate
description and unsurprisingly the book had various spelling/grammar errors.

Edit: The book has sold fewer than 100 copies before its removal.


----------



## playmobil (Nov 11, 2010)

Omfg what a idiot >..o


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> I guess this is directed at me.
> 
> Allow me to say it again:
> 
> ...



Calm down killa. It wasn't directed to you in general. I don't like the book no more than you. but at the same time he is not breaking any laws.

There's a quote that goes perfect for this situation about how I feel about the book writer.



Evelyn Beatrice Hall said:


> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 11, 2010)

Amazon has banned books before, so why sit on their hands on this one? It was bad publicity for them. As for the book itself, it's abhorrent, the author is disgusting for making such a book, but that doesn't necessarily make it illegal.


----------



## Proud Fist (Nov 11, 2010)

Ugh, why Amazon?! Why?!


----------



## Phunin (Nov 11, 2010)

Aww, Amazon removed it? Well, I suppose it was for the "greater good".


----------



## Sanity Check (Nov 11, 2010)

This inspires me to write a book entitled: _A Guide to Positive Identification and Vigilante Justice on Pedophiles_.

Unfortunately, I have other things to do right now.


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Phunin said:


> Aww, Amazon removed it? Well, I suppose it was for the "greater good".



It's still there.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2010)

Don't like it, don't buy it.  There are plenty of books on Amazon that some people find offensive.



Xion said:


> I love the 500 soccer moms that "reviewed" it and said that they would never buy another thing from Amazon for selling a book they disagree with.
> 
> Free speech isn't worth a dime if it's not protected.



Yeah.  I believe it was Noam Chomsky who said "if we don't believe in freedom of speech for those that we hate then we don't really believe in it".


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Nov 11, 2010)

Why does Amazon feel the need to leave it up? They're a privately owned business they can ban whatever they like. They're not like the government who would have to take free speech laws into account.


----------



## soulnova (Nov 11, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> This inspires me to write a book entitled: _A Guide to Positive Identification and Vigilante Justice on Pedophiles_.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have other things to do right now.



I know people who would buy this, without a second thought.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

My mom and dad said they removed it....is it true? I'm on a PSP so I can't load Amazon.


----------



## Captain America (Nov 11, 2010)

Wow, that book is just wrong. :/


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Why does Amazon feel the need to leave it up? They're a privately owned business they can ban whatever they like. They're not like the government who would have to take free speech laws into account.



Why should they ban this one book when other offensive books are allowed?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 11, 2010)

Fascist Americans win again


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Nov 11, 2010)

Reverse Logic Nods win over your faulty MCP all the time
Yes Yes Yes


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 11, 2010)

Can't find the book. Looks like reinforcement for the "I don't like it so no one can have it" fools.


----------



## Ultimania (Nov 11, 2010)

It's official, Pedobear has now invaded Amazon.


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 11, 2010)

Who cares if its censorship, pedophilia is illegal.

Anyone really is gonna waste their time to defend this shit?



Toroxus said:


> Can't find the book. Looks like reinforcement for the "I don't like it so no one can have it" fools.


More like the "grow balls and go pickup women your own age, creep" fools.


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 11, 2010)

-Dargor- said:


> Who cares if its censorship, pedophilia is illegal.



You can go to a local library and buy books on how to assassinate people; assassination is illegal. We aren't talking about actions or pictures, we are talking about words. I'm sure the FBI has a copy of this and has now updated their list to identify people who are harmful to others.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 11, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Fascist Americans win again



So much truth.


----------



## Phunin (Nov 11, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> It's still there.



Oh? Heard on the news a couple of hours ago that Amazon was pressured into removing the book because of all the negative reviews.


----------



## ninjaneko (Nov 11, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> You can go to a local library and buy books on how to assassinate people; assassination is illegal. We aren't talking about actions or pictures, we are talking about words. I'm sure the FBI has a copy of this and has now updated their list to identify people who are harmful to others.


There might be a difference here: Public libraries are usually funded by the state, Amazon is not.

And Amazon has refused to sell "objectionable" material before. They pick and choose what offensive material they sell and don't sell. As a business, I presume it's usually based on controversy like this hurting their business. 

As to "why this and not that," I think as a culture we're more comfortable with violence and drugs than with pedophilia. I don't think people take books on 'how to assassinate' that seriously, whether or not they should. And we do trust our law enforcement a bit. But we consider children to be far more vulnerable and sex crimes against them more easily accomplished. Just my impression. 


On a personal note, (assuming the book quotes are correct) I am really creeped out that the guy is trying make it as though prepubescent children are totally capable of knowledgeably, willingly, and maturely entering into a sexual relationship with an adult as an equal. The "You aren't so innocent " thing is apparently pretty common in child sex abuse cases. So yeah, pretty creepy. :S


----------



## Huntress (Nov 11, 2010)

Whoever buys this book will go on the FBI's and CIA's wanted list.
EVEN IF YOU ARE INNOCENT.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2010)

ninjaneko said:


> And Amazon has refused to sell "objectionable" material before. They pick and choose what offensive material they sell and don't sell. As a business, I presume it's usually based on controversy like this hurting their business.



What specifically have they refused to sell?


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

@PaperAngel: Yeah, because the FBI/CIA put pedophiles at the top of their Most Wanted list


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

PaperAngel said:


> Whoever buys this book will go on the FBI's and CIA's wanted list.
> EVEN IF YOU ARE INNOCENT.



What's not to say we're all up there already?


----------



## Huntress (Nov 11, 2010)

Mider T said:


> @PaperAngel: Yeah, because the FBI/CIA put pedophiles at the top of their Most Wanted list



because pedofiles and terrorists are public enemy number 1 at the moment. If you are a pedofile and a terrorist, ur fucked basically.



Hand Banana said:


> What's not to say we're all up there already?



 i swear she said she was 18


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

Pedophiles are usually handled by the state not the federal gov, unless they do something like have a brothel going on or murder.


----------



## Asmodeus (Nov 11, 2010)

This is an abhorrent view into the minds of the most twisted people on Earth. People who are attracted to members of their species too young to understand what those advances mean, and as a result can have their minds destroyed in the process. 

But pulling it is absurd. 1st amendment says there is a Freedom to speech. You don't like it...don't buy it. Simple as that. 

If anything it is an interesting view into a mind that is quite clearly insane trying to explain its logic. It's twisted, horrible, depraved and unforgivable, but it could also be a way in the future to maybe prevent some of these issues from occuring.


----------



## HolyHands (Nov 11, 2010)

Doesn't surprise me that they took it down. In the end, making a moral/political stand is always overshadowed by money. No way in hell was Amazon going to take all the bad publicity for the a sake of a book that didn't even sell much.


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 11, 2010)

ninjaneko said:


> *Spoiler*: _what you said_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with your perception on violence vs. sex crimes. But statistically speaking, having your child raped or molested is so low you should worry more about them getting struck by lighting in a crashing car while winning the lottery. Damn, the child is more likely to be molested repeatedly by a religious figure than ever by a stranger. Furthermore, said religious person is likely to not be brought to justice. But the media goes wall-to-wall with those child stories. As for those "reviews" on Amazon, I read through some of them, they aren't reviews, just protests. People were saying that the books lists names of local children that are easy pray to details on how to feed the bodies to the parents in satanic rituals. In other words, *people made shit up to further their agenda.* And no, their agenda wasn't "protect the children", it was "suppress knowledge." 
But the author is correct in that "minors" understand what sex is. Before you flame me, a minor is anyone under 16 in some states. So two 15 year olds can engage in sexual activity with each other and understand what they are doing. I just wrote a page on how our ancestors were having sex before they were even in their double digits. It's an instinct to have sex. We seem to forget that people as old as 17 and as young as 0 are all labeled as minors. And we seem to go off the deep end and the second we hear "minor" think the extreme young side of that range. But don't get me wrong, any non-minor engaging in sex with someone younger than 13 (things the book talks about) is 99.9999% likely to be deception by the adult. 

This topic is such a witch-hunt, and people become so over zealous that all rationality goes out the window. Yeah, we love our kids and we want to protect them. But when we are overtaken by fervor and everyone becomes too afraid to encourage logic, even when that logic agrees with the goals of those fanatic zealots, there's this huge assumption that bringing in any thought is immoral. Like the issue can't possibly exist with _logos_. *When that fanaticism exists, our children suffer.* The First Amendment is a rule for our government. But it's lesson to the people. The First Amendment teaches us to tolerate exactly those things which *shit* all over our values. Yes, many of the people who protested this book did so thinking they were protecting children. Really, they were pulled along by a current of fascist ideology that seeks to control what people can know or learn. But you could never explain this to them because you're be branded as defending pedophiles, and thus a p*d*p**** yourself. Just like the Red Scares, logic just doesn't seem to apply.

I wouldn't send money to the author of a book like this by purchasing it. But I am a reasonable adult, who tolerates such a work that *undermines* my values. This work isn't a child actually being molested, but just words. Like a work of fiction. These aren't pictures of an exploited child, like child pornography. No one was hurt. But people were hurt, exactly the people that fear being hurt from this work. But it wasn't from the book, but from themselves. By showing fabricating lies and promoting censorship, they work towards a world that suppresses knowledge. By locking their children up and grabbing the pitchfork, they work towards a world with less rationality. By showing intolerance to non-actions and ideas they work towards a world with more homogeneity.

I hate blueberries, but I don't protest farmers of blueberries. Like I said, I don't like this book. But who the _fuck_ am I to say that no one else can't get something from it? And who the _fuck_ do they think _they_ are in saying that I couldn't get something from it? That's my choice. My neighbors have consensual honest sex with knives and restraints? Who am *I* to tell them not to? My mailman wants to write a book about having sex with animals? Go for it, just don't go after Rover. This book talks about ideas, not actions, and when you say that an idea should be eliminated (like many of those "reviewers" said word for word) you are no better than anyone else.

/Wall O' Text
*Bends over to prepare for spanking flame war*


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 11, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> I agree with your perception on violence vs. sex crimes. But statistically speaking, having your child raped or molested is so low you should worry more about them getting struck by lighting in a crashing car while winning the lottery. Damn, the child is more likely to be molested repeatedly by a religious figure than ever by a stranger. Furthermore, said religious person is likely to not be brought to justice. But the media goes wall-to-wall with those child stories. As for those "reviews" on Amazon, I read through some of them, they aren't reviews, just protests. People were saying that the books lists names of local children that are easy pray to details on how to feed the bodies to the parents in satanic rituals. In other words, *people made shit up to further their agenda.* And no, their agenda wasn't "protect the children", it was "suppress knowledge."
> But the author is correct in that "minors" understand what sex is. Before you flame me, a minor is anyone under 16 in some states. So two 15 year olds can engage in sexual activity with each other and understand what they are doing. I just wrote a page on how our ancestors were having sex before they were even in their double digits. It's an instinct to have sex. We seem to forget that people as old as 17 and as young as 0 are all labeled as minors. And we seem to go off the deep end and the second we hear "minor" think the extreme young side of that range. But don't get me wrong, any non-minor engaging in sex with someone younger than 13 (things the book talks about) is 99.9999% likely to be deception by the adult.
> 
> This topic is such a witch-hunt, and people become so over zealous that all rationality goes out the window. Yeah, we love our kids and we want to protect them. But when we are overtaken by fervor and everyone becomes too afraid to encourage logic, even when that logic agrees with the goals of those fanatic zealots, there's this huge assumption that bringing in any thought is immoral. Like the issue can't possibly exist with _logos_. *When that fanaticism exists, our children suffer.* The First Amendment is a rule for our government. But it's lesson to the people. The First Amendment teaches us to tolerate exactly those things which *shit* all over our values. Yes, many of the people who protested this book did so thinking they were protecting children. Really, they were pulled along by a current of fascist ideology that seeks to control what people can know or learn. But you could never explain this to them because you're be branded as defending pedophiles, and thus a p*d*p**** yourself. Just like the Red Scares, logic just doesn't seem to apply.
> ...


 I wouldn't have written this if I were you.


----------



## Griever (Nov 11, 2010)

Xion said:


> I love the 500 soccer moms that "reviewed" it and said that they would never buy another thing from Amazon for selling a book they disagree with.
> 
> Free speech isn't worth a dime if it's not protected.



It's amazing how some people just don't know what freedom is . 

Anyways, i find this to be very humorous


----------



## Gino (Nov 11, 2010)

lol earth.......


----------



## soulnova (Nov 11, 2010)

Toroxus, I would like to live where you live. A place where sexual assaults on kids are very rare as you say... because you know, they don't account for all those kids who never speak out, right? Please, stop for a minute and let that one sink in. 


I know too many... too many people who were abused as children and never told their parents or authorities because they would either felt ashamed, guilty or too scared to say anything. I know too fucking many. I makes me cring at the thought of at what lenghts I'll have to protect my children when the times comes. I'll realized that not even the pitchfork will seem enough.

For some of my friends, their attackers were strangers who broke into their house, others were snatched when walking to the corner store or playing in the yard as their mom thought the fence was securely locked, which was not... many other were victims of people they 'loved' and trusted like a family friend or a close relative. It enrages me.


The truth is, they are out there to get our children. They are looking for an excuse to get close and how to get away with it. They are doing this as we speak. So, no, you shouldn't give your enemies the weapons to destroy the most important thing we have... 


I can go even further and tell you that I could bet that half the reviewers of that book were molested at one point on their life. They know what this could do to the life of other children. I told a couple of my abused friends about this book just now and they went pale. "They need to take it down. They HAVE TO"


Anyway... Everyone here can agree that the message of this story is "_Never, ever write anything that even seems to encourage sexual intercourse with pre-pubescent children, or else society's mother bear will maul you with her mighty angry claws to shreds_". And I'll cheer on her.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 11, 2010)

Asmodeus said:


> This is an abhorrent view into the minds of the most twisted people on Earth. People who are attracted to members of their species too young to understand what those advances mean, and as a result can have their minds destroyed in the process.



You mean people like Hitler are the SECOND most twisted people on earth


----------



## Enclave (Nov 11, 2010)

soulnova said:


> Toroxus, I would like to live where you live. A place where sexual assaults on kids are very rare as you say... because you know, they don't account for all those kids who never speak out, right? Please, stop for a minute and let that one sink in.
> 
> 
> I know too many... too many people who were abused as children and never told their parents or authorities because they would either felt ashamed, guilty or too scared to say anything. I know too fucking many. I makes me cring at the thought of at what lenghts I'll have to protect my children when the times comes. I'll realized that not even the pitchfork will seem enough.
> ...



He's actually right in that the odds of a child being molested by a stranger is really very very low.  That said, the odds of a child being molested by somebody trusted by the family?  That's SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk, be that person a teacher, part of the clergy, friend of the family, or even another family member.

So yeah, while the odds of being molested by a stranger are very low, the odds of being molested in general, that's not all that low of a percentage at all.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> I didn't support it and I'm not a Muslim.
> 
> This man is promoting raping children.
> 
> Do I need to repeat myself? The two situations are *very *different.



Nope, you're a Muslim.  Your line of logic means you must be a Muslim because you didn't support it.


----------



## soulnova (Nov 11, 2010)

Enclave said:


> He's actually right in that the odds of a child being molested by a stranger is really very very low.  That said, the odds of a child being molested by somebody trusted by the family?  That's SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk, be that person a teacher, part of the clergy, friend of the family, or even another family member.
> 
> So yeah, while the odds of being molested by a stranger are very low, the odds of being molested in general, that's not all that low of a percentage at all.





> *For some* of my friends, their attackers were strangers who broke into their house, others were snatched when walking to the corner store or playing in the yard as their mom thought the fence was securely locked, which was not... *many other* were victims of people they 'loved' and trusted like a family friend or a close relative. It enrages me.



Yes, I know. 

Beyond that, I have a friend who defies those statistics. She was raped by a stranger... then two or so years later OTHER stranger tried again. She didn't give me the details but she seems to have fought back and managed to escape. What are the odds of that happening twice? Is scary as shit.

I've never been in this position but the overwhelming amounts of "closed" abused people is... mindblowing. It changes the way you see the world when you are out for a walk. 

The closest thing ever happened to me was one time when my mom was very late to pick us from school. I was 10 and my little sister was 6. We were the last ones left and were all alone at the steps of the school. This guy was standing on the corner of the street like waiting for a taxi or a bus, but would glance at us from time to time. I had him on my "danger radar" for the moment he appeared. 

My little sister was oblivious of him just wondering why my mom was late. Then he started to walk down the sidewalk towards us. I looked around and there was no one else. No cars, no pedestrian. No one. I gulped and started to look 'cool' and moved closer to the street to see if my mom appeared down the road. 

I noticed he started to walk closer to the school's side. I started to worry as I realized he would try to get the one who would give him less trouble... my little sister. My fear dissapeared, but not my worry. I got my back to him, like if I was an easy prey. As he got at at least 30 feet from my sister, I suddenly turned around and called her out loudly telling her something, I don't remember what... it was something silly like "I don't want to miss that cartoon", or "We need to do homework as soon as we get back", I can't recall exactly. In that moment, he turned 180° and left the way he came. Just like that. I had busted him. "You can't fool me" I thought.

Five minutes later, my mom appeared and we left. I was very angry for what could have happened because if he hadn't chickened out I had no other way to discourage him. If he had gotten any tips or advice on how to do it and reassurance that he wouldn't get caught, maybe I wouldn't be telling the same story.


----------



## GodOfAzure (Nov 11, 2010)

Nesha said:


> I guess this is directed at me.
> 
> Allow me to say it again:
> 
> ...



I simply said I was amazed at the situation, my own views on the book never came into light anywhere in my post. Though it's good to see you are a rational human being who doesn't vilify others at the drop of a hat with insufficient evidence. Not to mention, you aren't the only person who has had the view, hence my quotes regarding "The constitution protects other peoples opinions" "OMG U R A p*d*p****". So no, it wasn't aimed at you directly but again thanks for being an upstanding citizen of the intellectual crowd.


----------



## Frostman (Nov 11, 2010)

So much for "never judge a book by its cover".


----------



## The Weeknd (Nov 11, 2010)

I like these Pedoturtles.


----------



## Basilikos (Nov 11, 2010)

Esp?ritudePantera said:


> I like these Pedoturtles.


Say what now?


----------



## Yakushi Kabuto (Nov 11, 2010)

Wow, when I read the title I thought it would be one of the humorous ones. Like the how to be a cougar and such books. But then I started reading more about it and hearing what Greaves was saying. The line about kissing/fondling being not a big problem made even my wacky sensibilities shudder a little.


----------



## Raiden (Nov 11, 2010)

Saw the author answering questions on CNN.

Basically said that we condemn paedophiles as the creeps of society, put them in prison. But there are sometimes positive relationships when the young meet the old.

It's...not something I agree with. His book should be pulled.


----------



## Shɑnɑ (Nov 11, 2010)

Frostman said:


> So much for "never judge a book by its cover".



Never said not to judge it by its author  or title for that matter.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

So word is he's been contacted by NAMBLA asking him if he wants admission.  As if this story couldn't get any weirder.


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Mider T said:


> So word is he's been contacted by NAMBLA asking him if he wants admission.  As if this story couldn't get any weirder.



 I just googled NAMBLA.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 11, 2010)

You've never heard of it? They had a South Park episode on it.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

^Like 10 years ago, kind of hard to remember  I actually thought the Marlon Brando one was real at first

CNN also interviewed him today, he looks like a blonde haired/balding Paul Giamatti.  Stutters and all making excuses.  Yeah he's probably a pedo.


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 11, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You've never heard of it? They had a South Park episode on it.



You act as if it's really important I know what they are.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2010)

Raiden said:


> It's...not something I agree with. His book should be pulled.



So we should pull all books that someone disagrees with?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> So we should pull all books that someone disagrees with?


So we're back to banning books? Goodie.


----------



## pikachuwei (Nov 11, 2010)

I would have bought a copy but my parents dont allow me to buy stuff online

Im underage so alg


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 11, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> You act as if it's really important I know what they are.



It's not, but I figured it was common knowledge on what the group was.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Good riddance.

What kind of freak tells people who to rape a child? Its disgusting!


----------



## Angel (Nov 11, 2010)

That's pretty crazy...



> ?The more noise that people make about it, the more people will buy it.?




Pretty much.


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

I just gained some respect for Amazon. It's about time a company stood up for itself instead of sucking up to it's unintellectual consumers (*cough**Google**cough*) by banning things left and right. Would pos rep.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> I just gained some respect for Amazon. It's about time a company stood up for itself instead of sucking up to it's unintellectual consumers (*cough**Google**cough*) by banning things left and right. Would pos rep.





Its a book...about raping children. 

Have you've even read the examples from the book?


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Its a book...about raping children.
> 
> Have you've even read the examples from the book?



Have you read the book? No? So don't talk about it like you have. People are making up quotes from the book to satisfy their imagination of the unknown horrors inside of it. I've read people saying it talks about cannibalism and satanic rituals. What a joke.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> Have you read the book? No? So don't talk about it like you have. People are making up quotes from the book to satisfy their imagination of the unknown horrors inside of it. I've read people saying it talks about cannibalism and satanic rituals. What a joke.



I read two pages from it and saw it telling Pedos to finger a little boy and masturbate to children you know. 

Oh,  so can I make a book about murdering you and getting people to rape you and then sell it on Amazon to psychos? I mean, its my freedom right? And then when someone really crazy buys the book, finds you and murders you (instead of raping a child) I won't be blamed, right?

My freedoms.


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

And there are video games, movies and books about brutally slaughtering everyone in your sight, and I see the same people making the same arguments trying to get those things banned. It is the individual's personal responsibility to not act out in response to any possible prompts you get. The average person would not read this book and suddenly decide to start raping children; the ones that would already had a problem to begin with.

No, I have not read the book. But I shouldn't need to in order to justify my position. Saying I should read the horrible things it says is fallacious and an appeal to emotions; that has no place in a logical discussion.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> And there are video games, movies and books about brutally slaughtering everyone in your sight, and I see the same people making the same arguments trying to get those things banned. It is the individual's personal responsibility to not act out in response to any possible prompts you get.* The average person would not read this book and suddenly decide to start raping children; the ones that would already had a problem to begin with.*
> 
> No, I have not read the book. But I shouldn't need to in order to justify my position. Saying I should read the horrible things it says is fallacious and an appeal to emotions; that has no place in a logical discussion.



The game isn't telling you to murder. You simply do in the video. Or at least in all the ones I've played -- GTA and all. This book is encouraging Pedos to go out and rape and even TEACHES them how to do it without being caught.

*Oh because this book doesn't teach Pedos to rape, they just won't do it right? I mean, dang, the book goes into detail on how to avoid being caught, how to rape a little boy properly and oh yea, how not to -- when raping them -- give them HIV.*

Let us not forget the guy who got encourage to murder from Invader Zim and that didn't even tell people to kill


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

Well, that's one of the problems being made. This particular book is being singled out simply because it is labeled as a "guidebook." But in reality, any of things you mentioned, Grand Theft Auto included, can be used as a guidebook and a starting point into a person's criminality. Take a classic piece of literature, "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allan Poe. In only a couple of pages, it details how one goes about covertly murdering someone and meticulously disposing of the body in a way that it can not be found. Now, because it is not listed as a guidebook on murder, it is protected under artistic freedom, even though you can get plenty of ideas from reading it. Bringing up the Invader Zim guy only furthers that; people see what they want to see.

Censorship is ultimately based on the morals of our time, thus it should not be allowed even if you severely disagree with the material it involves. Fifty years argue, you could make the same argument for banning anything with homosexual or interracial content because they were considered deviant. A guide is only as capable as the person reading it.


----------



## Griever (Nov 11, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> So we should pull all books that someone disagrees with?



I agree, books should not be banned simply because someone finds the content 'disturbing'.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It's not, but I figured it was common knowledge on what the group was.



It's not really, i had to look it up as well


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> Well, that's one of the problems being made. This particular book is being singled out simply because it is labeled as a "guidebook." But in reality, any of things you mentioned, Grand Theft Auto included, can be used as a guidebook and a starting point into a person's criminality. Take a classic piece of literature, "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allan Poe. In only a couple of pages, it details how one goes about covertly murdering someone and meticulously disposing of the body in a way that it can not be found. Now, because it is not listed as a guidebook on murder, it is protected under artistic freedom, even though you can get plenty of ideas from reading it. Bringing up the Invader Zim guy only furthers that; people see what they want to see.
> 
> Censorship is ultimately based on the morals of our time, thus it should not be allowed even if you severely disagree with the material it involves. Fifty years argue, you could make the same argument for banning anything with homosexual or interracial content because they were considered deviant. A guide is only as capable as the person reading it.



Is GTA a guide book? No, it is not. 

Its not only "labeled" as a guidebook, it *is* a guidebook to raping children. GTA is a game, not labeled as "How to start gang wars/rapes, get hookers & so on. Nor does it say "Do what you do in the game in real life" but this Pedo book does say "Do what's in this book and you won't get caught!".

But I guess if you want to advocate and allow a book teaching Pedos to rape children, then go ahead. 

I just don't see how you could do it...You want to talk about freedoms, what about the freedoms and protection of children? What about all the children? Do they matter less than a freak who teaches another how to properly rape a child?


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Is GTA a guide book? No, it is not.
> 
> Its not only "labeled" as a guidebook, it *is* a guidebook to raping children. GTA is a game, not labeled as "How to start gang wars/rapes, get hookers & so on. Nor does it say "Do what you do in the game in real life" but this Pedo book does say "Do what's in this book and you won't get caught!".



That is exactly the kind of semantic distinction I was referring to. There is a reason why people try to ban Grand Theft Auto; because they believe it has a negative influence on the people who play it, despite having little to no evidence supporting that connection. A person looking for ideas is not going to say, "This book/game/movie doesn't say 'this will work in real life' thus I should not try it." They will get their ideas and then choose whether or not to act upon them.



> But I guess if you want to advocate and allow a book teaching Pedos to rape children, then go ahead.
> 
> I just don't see how you could do it...You want to talk about freedoms, what about the freedoms and protection of children? What about all the children? Do they matter less than a freak who teaches another how to properly rape a child?



More appealing to emotions. Banning a book will never realistically equate to children becoming more free. You _could_ try to make a point by banning the book, in order to say, "We do not approve of this book because it makes light of a serious social issue." But that is quite different from saying you will further protect a child's freedom.


----------



## Basilikos (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm amazed how nonchalant people are about this. It's not like it's a videogame or a movie that just happens to have some morally questionable content.

It's a totally different story when that stuff is being promoted, encouraged, and shown in a positive light.

Something like this deserves every bit of scorn and bashing it receives. The moral callousness of our modern society never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 11, 2010)

UPDATE: 

WTF IS GOING ON HERE?!!?

I updated the OP as well.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> That is exactly the kind of semantic distinction I was referring to. There is a reason why people try to ban Grand Theft Auto; because they believe it has a negative influence on the people who play it, despite having little to no evidence supporting that connection. A person looking for ideas is not going to say, "This book/game/movie doesn't say 'this will work in real life' thus I should not try it." They will get their ideas and then choose whether or not to act upon them.


There is a difference. GTA is not a guide on how to do something. It never tells you to do anything. Its a story.

This Pedo book, however, is a guide on how to hurt and rape, children and not get caught.

GTA is just a game. No where does it tell you to do anything. Nowhere in the title does it say "The killer's guide to death and destruction" like it does for this book: "The p*d*p****'s Book to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct".




Winchester Gospel said:


> More appealing to emotions. Banning a book will never realistically equate to children becoming more free. You _could_ try to make a point by banning the book, in order to say, "We do not approve of this book because it makes light of a serious social issue." But that is quite different from saying you will further protect a child's freedom.


By banning a book that teaches one how to rape a child and get away with it, is protecting children. Maybe not to the degree of making it completely, mega rare for child rape, but it will at least stop the Pedos from raping the children under these guidelines and getting away with it.



> UPDATE:
> 
> WTF IS GOING ON HERE?!!?


Wow...

What pieces of shite.

See what "they have freedomz!" does?

Hmmm:


> HE p*d*p**** (Paedophile) training manual is no longer being sold on


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> There is a difference. GTA is not a guide on how to do something. It never tells you to do anything. Its a story.
> 
> This Pedo book, however, is a guide on how to hurt and rape, children and not get caught.
> 
> GTA is just a game. No where does it tell you to do anything. Nowhere in the title does it say "The killer's guide to death and destruction" like it does for this book: "The p*d*p****'s Book to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct".



The scenarios in a game are just as fictitious as the scenarios supposedly playing out in this book. In both cases, you are meant to identify with and fill the role of the protagonist.



> By banning a book that teaches one how to rape a child and get away with it, is protecting children. Maybe not to the degree of making it completely, mega rare for child rape, but it will at least stop the Pedos from raping the children under these guidelines and getting away with it.



It would make more sense to use the book as a learning experience, to prevent the situations listed in it from ever taking place, rather than simply banning the book and hoping that made all the difference. And if we are or are already going to try to prevent said situations, there would have been no point to banning the book in the first place.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> The scenarios in a game are just as fictitious as the scenarios supposedly playing out in this book. In both cases, you are meant to identify with and fill the role of the protagonist.


No.

The BOOK is a training manual for Child Rapists/Pedophiles. GTA is a game with story nowhere in it, telling someone to do something. This book does tell you how to do it, from the new informatiom Mider posted, without breaking the law. Like fingering them and the such.

Pedo book: Rapist manual
GTA: Game that never mentions anywhere to do something.




Winchester Gospel said:


> It would make more sense to use the book as a learning experience, to prevent the situations listed in it from ever taking place, rather than simply banning the book and hoping that made all the difference. And if we are or are already going to try to prevent said situations, there would have been no point to banning the book in the first place.



So fuel a flame and teach the rapists how to do it better. So much logic. 

I wonder if you'd feel if this book was made when you were a kid and it got you raped because of it. Or, I wonder how you would feel if this book caused your child (if you have one) to get raped. Would you still be acting as if a rapist manual isn't a big deal or that it should stay up?


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> No.
> 
> The BOOK is a training manual for Child Rapists/Pedophiles. GTA is a game with story nowhere in it, telling someone to do something. This book does tell you how to do it, from the new informatiom Mider posted, without breaking the law. Like fingering them and the such.
> 
> ...




You are still not responding to my point. _No one cares what the game says on the box._ Just because it is not listed as a manual, does not mean people will not draw inspiration from it and apply it to real life. The people that can draw the line between fiction and reality are the people that you don't need to worry about. They will read this book and understand that you shouldn't be trying this in real life.

That is the only group you are addressing.

The real threats are the people who are willing to do whatever it takes to commit their crime. These people make no distinction between stories and real life, they will use whatever means necessary to accomplish their goals. Say you wanted to murder someone but there is nothing on the market advertised as a guide to murder. Where are you going to draw your inspiration from? The news, movies, video games, books. These people either can't understand the difference between those things or simply do not care. And banning a book is not going to address them. At all.



> So fuel a flame and teach the rapists how to do it better. So much logic.



I'm not sure what you are responding to with this comment. How does taking steps to prevent children from being sexually abused constitute fueling the flame? I am putting emphasis on stopping actual crime instead of placing undeserved importance on some words on a page. I think any ordinary person could figure out how to get a child alone and without anyone there to protect them. This stuff is common sense. But because it is written in words, it becomes more threatening than it was before.



> I wonder if you'd feel if this book was made when you were a kid and it got you raped because of it. Or, I wonder how you would feel if this book caused your child (if you have one) to get raped. Would you still be acting as if a rapist manual isn't a big deal or that it should stay up?



Another appeal to emotions.

Edit:



Terra Branford said:


> Oh,  so can I make a book about murdering you and getting people to rape you and then sell it on Amazon to psychos? I mean, its my freedom right? And then when someone really crazy buys the book, finds you and murders you (instead of raping a child) I won't be blamed, right?



To respond to that final quote and this one. Yes, I would say that it would be unfortunate if these things occurred in real life. But that is ultimately the price of free speech and true freedom. Remember that the argument you are playing right now was once used to suppress entire civilizations from rebellion. Writing about a government's oppression could potentially inspire the people to take the law into their own hands, thus it was censored. Many other things that we now deem positive by historical standards were banned from art and text by the very same reasoning, which makes it's allowance dangerous even on a case by case basis.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> You are still not responding to my point. _No one cares what the game says on the box._ Just because it is not listed as a manual, does not mean people will not draw inspiration from it and apply it to real life. The people that can draw the line between fiction and reality are the people that you don't need to worry about. They will read this book and understand that you shouldn't be trying this in real life.
> 
> That is the only group you are addressing.


That was my response to your "point"

The two cases are completely different. One tells you to do something, and the other doesn't.

Oh? And I bring up again the Zim case. And this is a manual on how to rape child. Zim was just an alien show.

This MANUAL will increase the p*d*p**** situation.



Winchester Gospel said:


> The real threats are the people who are willing to do whatever it takes to commit their crime. These people make no distinction between stories and real life, they will use whatever means necessary to accomplish their goals. Say you wanted to murder someone but there is nothing on the market advertised as a guide to murder. Where are you going to draw your inspiration from? The news, movies, video games, books. These people either can't understand the difference between those things or simply do not care. And banning a book is not going to address them. At all.


Real threats? Other child rapists aren't real threats? 

A rapist is a rapist. There are no different levels of child rapists. One just kills and the other just rapes and runs away. But this book teaches one to do it without breaking the law -- getting away with it.

You aren't getting it. This book will increase the rate. If not teach the rate of rapists we already have, on "not to get caught" therefore giving them the chance to rape more children and get away with it.



Winchester Gospel said:


> I'm not sure what you are responding to with this comment. How does taking steps to prevent children from being sexually abused constitute fueling the flame? I am putting emphasis on stopping actual crime instead of placing undeserved importance on some words on a page. I think any ordinary person could figure out how to get a child alone and without anyone there to protect them. This stuff is common sense. But because it is written in words, it becomes more threatening than it was before.
> 
> Another appeal to emotions.




You are saying the book shouldn't be banned and that it won't help anything or at all -- which is absurd. So I said its fueling the flames by letting the book stay. Wasn't that hard... :/


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 11, 2010)

Regarding the video game example, I don't think it quite fits comparing GTA to this particualr book. Violence and sex are held to different standard in terms of media and what have you. The point being, though I don't know for certain, I highly doubt there are any video games where one gets to play as a rapist, much less a p*d*p****. And if there are, they are likely illegal as of now in North America.



Winchester Gospel said:


> You are still not responding to my point. _No one cares what the game says on the box._ Just because it is not listed as a manual, does not mean people will not draw inspiration from it and apply it to real life. The people that can draw the line between fiction and reality are the people that you don't need to worry about. They will read this book and understand that you shouldn't be trying this in real life.
> 
> That is the only group you are addressing.
> 
> ...



The book probably fails the Miller Test. Though I suppose, to say it certainly does, one would need to have read the book. Assuming it does however, it can be censored by law. 



Patently offensive is a term used in United States law regarding obscenity and the First Amendment.

The phrase "patently offensive" first appeared in Roth v. United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public. The Roth standard outlined what is to be considered obscene and thus not under First Amendment protection. The Roth standard was largely replaced by the Miller test established by Miller v. California (1973).

[edit] Roth standard
According to the "Roth Standard" a work is obscene if:

The dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex,
The material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters,
The material is utterly without redeeming social value
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, writing for the majority, included the following definitions of what may be "patently offensive":

"Representations or descriptions of ultimate sex acts normal or perverted, actual or simulated."
"Representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibitions of the genitals."

[edit] Miller test
Main article: Miller test
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[1] It has three parts:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientif


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> That was my response to your "point"
> 
> The two cases are completely different. One tells you to do something, and the other doesn't.



Why are they different? Are you saying that one can only be inspired to commit a crime if the inspiration in question *explicitly* tell you to do it in real life? Are you saying that a person has never been inspired to rape or murder or commit a crime based on art?

Essentially, you are arguing that the content of a work is of less relevance than it's advertised purpose. If Grand Theft Auto had your character meticulously seclude a child and rape them, it would be all right as long as it is a game storyline not meant to be confused with real life? I find this absurd. The horrific content is not excused by the fact that it is a story, which is why parents don't go around showing their children R-rated movies.



> Oh? And I bring up again the Zim case. And this is a manual on how to rape child. Zim was just an alien show.
> 
> This of what a MANUAL will do to the p*d*p**** situation.



I apologize but you are going to have to spell out why you keep bring this case up. The fact that somebody could be inspired by Invader Zim proves that a person could be inspired by literally _anything_ if they were looking for inspiration. I hope you are not trying to say, "Look what a kid's show did, now imagine what a manual will do" because reasoning does not work exponentially like that.



> Real threats? Other child rapists aren't real threats?
> 
> A rapist is a rapist. There are no different levels of child rapists. One just kills and the other just rapes and runs away. But this book teaches one to do it without breaking the law -- getting away with it.
> 
> You aren't getting it. This book will increase the rate. If not teach the rate of rapists we already have, on "not to get caught" therefore giving them the chance to rape more children and get away with it.



The rapists are the "real threat" I am referring to. I was speaking in the context of the book's readers, not the sum of all rapists. Unless you are equating all of the book's readers to rapists, my point still stands.


----------



## Burke (Nov 11, 2010)

Ohey wheres zaxxon when you need him?


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> Regarding the video game example, I don't think it quite fits comparing GTA to this particualr book. Violence and sex are held to different standard in terms of media and what have you. The point being, though I don't know for certain, I highly doubt there are any video games where one gets to play as a rapist, much less a p*d*p****. And if there are, they are likely illegal as of now in North America.



Oh, I am aware of the Miller Test and I don't necessarily disagree with it's findings. I _do_ think that this book should be banned or, at least, carefully sold, under the guidelines of scientific, literary, social or political merit. If it were up to me, I would rather read it first but basing my opinion upon the estimated content, it does more harm than its net societal value can save it from by today's standards. I am just disagreeing with TB's (and a few others) specific reasoning for why they want it banned. It's been an interesting thread for me, so far.

But as you point out, sex and violence are indeed held to different standards by the modern media and that is not something I agree with strongly. The populace is convinced that inflicting violence is more far off and "unrealistic", thus they have no qualms about depicting it gratuitously. Sexual acts and sexual crimes, on the other hand, are seen as something that could be easily achieved and are thus censored profusely for fear that they may inspire the young or the delinquent. It is an interesting trend but I would like to read more about the history of arriving at that conclusion before I come to a solid opinion.

Edit: Ninja'd by occasionalutopia, whose opinion I share, more or less.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> Why are they different? Are you saying that one can only be inspired to commit a crime if the inspiration in question *explicitly* tell you to do it in real life? Are you saying that a person has never been inspired to rape or murder or commit a crime based on art?


I already explained why they are different. Three times.

One is a game that doesn't tell the player to do something or is a "manual" on how to do something. Do you honestly think that GTA, a story that isn't telling one to do something, is the same as opposed to this book actually telling one to do something?

No, that's not what I'm saying. This book advocates and teaches. GTA is just a game. No where in the game will you find messages on how to break a law and get away with it, or raping children and getting away with it.

They are different cases. Yes, GTA's themes are bad, but they aren't telling a killer "How to do it and not get caught" is it? 



Winchester Gospel said:


> Essentially, you are arguing that the content of a work is of less relevance than it's advertised purpose. If Grand Theft Auto had your character meticulously seclude a child and rape them, it would be all right as long as it is a game storyline not meant to be confused with real life? I find this absurd. The horrific content is not excused by the fact that it is a story, which is why parents don't go around showing their children R-rated movies.



No, if the game had them raping children and teaching them HOW TO DO IT without getting caught, then it would be in the same category as this book.

Stories are less likely to inspire (Note how I never mentioned that it cannot happen) than an actual friggin' manual on how to rape a child and get away with it.



Winchester Gospel said:


> I apologize but you are going to have to spell out why you keep bring this case up. The fact that somebody could be inspired by Invader Zim proves that a person could be inspired by literally _anything_ if they were looking for inspiration. I hope you are not trying to say, "Look what a kid's show did, now imagine what a manual will do" because reasoning does not work exponentially like that.



Oh, if it didn't make sense, the end of it, I already knew. I made an edit to my post 

Here's what I meant to say: _Oh? And I bring up again the Zim case. And this is a manual on how to rape child. Zim was just an alien show.

This MANUAL will increase the p*d*p**** situation._

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying one _cannot_ be inspired by a story, just that if they can, what do you think an actual manual will do?



Winchester Gospel said:


> The rapists are the "real threat" I am referring to. I was speaking in the context of the book's readers, not the sum of all rapists. Unless you are equating all of the book's readers to rapists, my point still stands.



Oh well of course the "rapists" are the real threat. What do you think rapists will do when they get a hold of this manual on how to rape children?


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

Labeling it as "just a game" or "just a story" does not render it's content harmless. You just agreed that some people will be inspired to act out on what they see in Grand Theft Auto. Doesn't that mean we should ban it as well? After all, allowing some people to play a video game is not worth the few people that may fall victim to it's players. Or is it just that the book will inspire "more" people because of it's "try this at home" label?



> Oh well of course the "rapists" are the real threat. What do you think rapists will do when they get a hold of this manual on how to rape children?



I was just clarifying my statement. I was not saying rapists are more dangerous than other rapists, I was saying that rapists are more dangerous than regular readers of the book.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> Labeling it as "just a game" or "just a story" does not render it's content harmless. You just agreed that some people will be inspired to act out on what they see in Grand Theft Auto. Doesn't that mean we should ban it as well? After all, allowing some people to play a video game is not worth the few people that may fall victim to it's players. Or is it just that the book will inspire "more" people because of it's "try this at home" label?


Yes, I did just agree and no where in my posts did I say a story couldn't inspire one. But GTA and a Rapist manual are completely different. One tells you how to do it and the other is a game about killing/drugs/whatever else.

The book is a manual. If GTA was teaching it and actually telling one to break the law and to rape a child, then yea, its bad. But its not. Now I'm not saying GTA cannot inspire one to kill or sell drugs, but if a story could, what do you think a "manual" will do to child rapists?



Winchester Gospel said:


> I was just clarifying my statement. I was not saying rapists are more dangerous than other rapists, I was saying that rapists are more dangerous than regular readers of the book.


Okay, I know that now. But can I ask you what do you think rapists will do when they get an actual manual on how to rape children?


----------



## hustler's ambition (Nov 11, 2010)

I still stand by what I said many pages ago in regards to the people who support this author.


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 11, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Yes, I did just agree and no where in my posts did I say a story couldn't inspire one. But GTA and a Rapist manual are completely different. One tells you how to do it and the other is a game about killing/drugs/whatever else.
> 
> The book is a manual. If GTA was teaching it and actually telling one to break the law and to rape a child, then yea, its bad. But its not. Now I'm not saying GTA cannot inspire one to kill or sell drugs, but if a story could, what do you think a "manual" will do to child rapists?



I see, I simply disagree with that. I've seen movies where people carefully plan robberies, assassination, etc. but for the same reasons I have stated before, I do not feel they should be censored. Even when these works are so detailed as to give a person looking for inspiration some ideas to work with, in most cases, it was ultimately not the tipping point that made them snap and decide to go through with it. I think making this decision based on whether something is labeled as a guidebook or a story is rather superfluous when you are examining the true content.




> Okay, I know that now. But can I ask you what do you think rapists will do when they get an actual manual on how to rape children?



It is obvious what they will do. They will rape children, and they may even become more efficient at it because they read the book. That is something I never argued against. But as you are saying, this is what a rapist would do when they read the book, not an ordinary person. By calling them a rapist, you are saying that they have already decided to rape, no matter what. The book was not a tipping point and it was not an inspiration. It may have given them some tips but ultimately, it did not change who they are. And a book not capable of doing that is not something I find worth banning when I consider the numerous other positive things that will end up being banned under the same reasoning.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 11, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> I see, I simply disagree with that. I've seen movies where people carefully plan robberies, assassination, etc. but for the same reasons I have stated before, I do not feel they should be censored. Even when these works are so detailed as to give a person looking for inspiration some ideas to work with, in most cases, it was ultimately not the tipping point that made them snap and decide to go through with it. I think making this decision based on whether something is labeled as a guidebook or a story is rather superfluous when you are examining the true content.



And those movies have inspired others to work and hurt and break the law just like that...some things have to be censored. Too much freedom is hell and then sooner or later, you'll have people killing each other because its their right to kill....

Its not just labeled as a guidebook. The author himself said it was a manual/guidebook to better pleasure yourself with children and do it without breaking the law.

If the book was about Pedophiles, then I guess it would be a different case. Buts its a book teaching them to hurt and rape children.



Winchester Gospel said:


> It is obvious what they will do. They will rape children, and they may even become more efficient at it because they read the book. That is something I never argued against. But as you are saying, this is what a rapist would do when they read the book, not an ordinary person. By calling them a rapist, you are saying that they have already decided to rape, no matter what. The book was not a tipping point and it was not an inspiration. It may have given them some tips but ultimately, it did not change who they are. And a book not capable of doing that is not something I find worth banning when I consider the numerous other positive things that will end up being banned under the same reasoning.


I never meant to, if I had, to say all of the readers of the books are rapists. But if they aren't child rapists/Pedos -- except if they are reading to provide the world with what it offers and how bad it is -- why are they reading a book on how to properly rape a child? Why must they (Pedos) learn how to rape a child and not get caught if they aren't going to do it or aren't already a rapist or child offender?


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 12, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> And those movies have inspired others to work and hurt and break the law just like that...some things have to be censored. Too much freedom is hell and then sooner or later, you'll have people killing each other because its their right to kill....



I see. If that is your opinion, I am not in disagreement. I was arguing more towards what I perceive as hypocrisy amongst the depiction of minors sexually versus other potentially offensive images. If you hold this opinion with other sources as well, there is nothing to argue about as I do not, personally, hold an opinion as to what happens in this case.



> Its not just labeled as a guidebook. The author himself said it was a manual/guidebook to better pleasure yourself with children and do it without breaking the law.
> 
> If the book was about Pedophiles, then I guess it would be a different case. Buts its a book teaching them to hurt and rape children.



I'm surprised it was even published when he was so obvious about it's utter lack of actual benefits.



> I never meant to, if I had, to say all of the readers of the books are rapists. But if they aren't child rapists/Pedos -- except if they are reading to provide the world with what it offers and how bad it is -- why are they reading a book on how to properly rape a child? Why must they (Pedos) learn how to rape a child and not get caught if they aren't going to do it or aren't already a rapist or child offender?



It just so happens that this book is very explicit about what it is instructing you to do but the implication of this reasoning would get you labeled a wannabe rapist for reading anything even remotely similar in theme, in the majority of cases it would be applied to.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 12, 2010)

Winchester your comparisons and analogies are wrong, to use a very kind word. Here we have a guy who in terrible English says dumb things about how he supports people fucking children.  How a 60 years old having sex with children is better for them than doing it with people of their own age. How Paedophiles never rape children when they have sex with children. And he is the author of that book. How can one compare that to GTA is beyond me. 

, the book to mention an example, some may find its content questionable but it doesn't make much sense for corporations to disagree with distributing it, and it can be compared to . (notice the rating of the book and the game).Your analogies however are not working in this case, since this is an entirely different category, more akin to children pornography than GTA in how objectionable it is. Obviously I am not saying that it is that, but far closer example than comparing it with GTA. 

Hence, it is reasonable to expect corporations and individuals to allow as less distribution as possible of it, and criticize corporations that distribute it, while there is no such issue with GTA or Lolita.

As far as whether the government should restrict its distribution, or make it illegal, there is an argument to be had about this issue from those willing to argue for it in either way, but again GTA analogies are wrong and here we are talking about a corporation and not a government.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 12, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> I see. If that is your opinion, I am not in disagreement. I was arguing more towards what I perceive as hypocrisy amongst the depiction of minors sexually versus other potentially offensive images. If you hold this opinion with other sources as well, there is nothing to argue about as I do not, personally, hold an opinion as to what happens in this case.




I see it with a lot actually and feel this way for a lot. In Hastings where I live, they were saying a book on how to beat your wife so she doesn't talk back to you and it was serious. I was just as angry...no, this is even more appalling because its about hurting poor children 



Winchester Gospel said:


> I'm surprised it was even published when he was so obvious about it's utter lack of actual benefits.



Me too...but I guess he published and made his own copies and sold them?



Winchester Gospel said:


> It just so happens that this book is very explicit about what it is instructing you to do but the implication of this reasoning would get you labeled a wannabe rapist for reading anything even remotely similar in theme, in the majority of cases it would be applied to.


I dunno...telling one how to do it without "breaking" breaking the law is telling them to do it and showing them how to do it without getting caught...

But alright. Let us agree to disagree...? Or agree to agree? >.<


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 12, 2010)

I was not aware you were referring to "guidebook" in the legal sense, as that would have changed my argument a bit. As I already said, I find it acceptable to restrict this book under the Miller Test.

@Narutofann, it is similar to GTA in that the product itself does not actually harm anyone, rather it the people themselves committing the crime. You could make a valid argument for the product inflicting mental damage, but that is still an accusation full of speculation, i.e. a devout Christian may feel books involving homosexuality to be mentally damaging and ill-advised. This is not the same thing as child pornography, which makes victims by it's very creation.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Nov 12, 2010)

Well, if it's not some satire and it's actually a guidebook, then my interest in it has declined considerably.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 12, 2010)

Mist Puppet said:


> Well, if it's not some satire and it's actually a guidebook, then my interest in it has declined considerably.



Its actually a guidebook.... 

I was hoping it would be a troll just to anger people. But he's written other books about this sort of thing before. :/


----------



## TSC (Nov 12, 2010)

Guys chill. You do realize that with the amount of publicity and attention it received, that the polices dept. and FBI wouldn't buy the book as well to find counter measures to it?

If anything, the book failed(as a guidebook), the moment it got published.


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 12, 2010)

With the overflow of loli shit going around on NF I'm not really surprised this thread got to 14 pages this fast.


----------



## Xyloxi (Nov 12, 2010)

And to think I wanted one.


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 12, 2010)

Mist Puppet said:


> Well, if it's not some satire and it's actually a guidebook, then my interest in it has declined considerably.



You had prior interest?


----------



## Mider T (Nov 12, 2010)

TSC said:


> Guys chill. You do realize that with the amount of publicity and attention it received, that the polices dept. and FBI wouldn't buy the book as well to find counter measures to it?
> 
> If anything, the book failed(as a guidebook), the moment it got published.



The book was published last month.



PikaCheeka said:


> That is NOT legal in any way, shape, or form. Fondling or fingering a child is still grounds for arrest and jailtime. I'd like to see where this information came from.



There were claims this book was teaching people how to rape kids, that isn't rape.


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 12, 2010)

Terra wants to live in a world where every *idea* she disagrees with is illegal. If she doesn't like it, it must be destroyed!

Meanwhile, rational people, like me, want to live in a world where every *harmful action* to a minor is illegal.

I already pointed out my argument about this book. I don't need to go over it again. But I will nail you for using a logical fallacy. Saying that I agree with children being raped because I disagree with burning a book of nothing but words is the twisted and fuck-up logic that I pointed out in my Wall O Text on page 11. That's called a *False Continuum* and you can't seem to use anything but it. I pointed a similiar fallacy at the beginning of this post. 
Your logical fallacy reads:
"Book that _promotes_ pedophilia" *therefore* "that book encourages a crime against children" *therefore* "it tells people how to abduct children" *therefore* "children will be hurt by this book" *therefore* "this book is dangerous" *therefore* "it must be destroyed" *therefore* "anyone who does not want it to be destroyed are putting children at risk" *therefore* "they want children to be abducted/raped" *therefore* "they are pedophiles too" *therefore* "they are dangerous."

The path of your logic has been broken at the green statement. But jumping to purple, you are now just paranoidly assuming something.

You know, I can use *False Continuum* too. Ready?
"Book that promotes pedophilia but contains nothing but words" *therefore* "the book is just an idea" *therefore* "no one was hurt in it's creation" *therefore* "it's not dangerous" *but* "people are saying the book should be destroyed for the idea it carries (Terra)" *therefore* "They want to destroy ideas" *therefore* "To control what ideas they don't want people to know" *therefore* "to control what ideas they do know" *therefore* "the ideas that they allow are the ideas they want" *therefore* "they control other people."

Another fallacy you use over and over, and is very related to False Continuum is the *Slippery Slope.*
Terra, you better stop eating meat or sooner or later you'll be eating people!
Terra, you better stop eating plants or sooner or later you'll be eating dirt!
Terra, you better stop eating or sooner or later there will be no food! (Fat pun not intended)
Terra, you better stop breathing or soon or later there will be no more air!
Terra, we better stop having any freedom or else we'll have people with the freedom to kill others!
Oh wait, I didn't make the last one up, you did for me. Thanks.

Calling me a p*d*p**** or a threat to children because I disagree with destroying a book of words on a subject makes as much sense as me calling you Hitler because you're trying to control which ideas are legal. And reading my sentences and swapping out the word "idea" for the word "action" is the same fucking stupid ass bullshit that I'm talking about. Learn to debate without changing the opponents message for yourself. I know it's tempting because that means in your head you make the opponent say what's easiest for you to counter and not realize your falsehood, but try to resist. 
And yes, I'm not talking to just Terra, you fools know how you are.

To sum up what I said in my other post:
*Committing* an action of harm against a child is a _crime_, and rightfully illegal.
*Writing* about that action of harm against a child is _not a crime_, and rightfully legal.
There's a huge difference. No reasonable, stable person can defend the horrible action of raping anyone.

As for you Terra. I noticed you talked about censors and freedom. That certain things should be censored, according to you that is. To censor something means that you specifically intend to prevent the speaker from getting across their intended message. A decency code is a set of censors that prevent an entire message from being discussed. "Entire messages prevented from being discussed?" Reminds me of some people from the 30's and 40's. You know, honey, there is no need for censors. You are the *censor!* I am one too! By not purchasing Pedobook, or by not purchasing a ticket for Gore Movie #3, I censor that item. By not giving them money, they lose the means to promote it more, or make a second copy. I discourage them from doing these things. Also, I express my personal opinion by not experiencing these things in which I don't want to. But you don't just want to make a choice for yourself on whether or not to experience something. You want a fucking law for everyone. By people attending a violent movie, they are in fact being democratic. They are essentially voting for the movie, while people who don't attend are voting against it. A different movie comes out, more people like it, the more votes it gets, the more support is has, the more likely movies like it are going to be released.

That's people choice! And by making a censor and destroying freedom, you deprive people of the choices they want to make. Choices that don't affect you. And (By using profanity, I express that I think of you worse than just a stupid, or wrong person who fabricates information. Because the words I choose to describe you are exactly those ideas in which I want to express about you.) by pulling shit out of your ass and joining agenda-drivers with false and misleading data on violence from video games and movies, you show your support for those agendas and misconceptions.

When people put drawn girls in their underwear in their signatures on this forum. They express an idea of their choosing. Do I agree with their idea? No. So what do I do? I don't plan to make it a law or some rule that that's not allowed. I don't look at the picture. Better yet, I recognize the picture the second time I see it, and don't even notice it after that. Or better yet! I disable signatures on the forums. OR BETTER YET! I leave this forum and go to another forum, where I support the new forum by attending and getting hits on advertisements, and I discourage this forum by not attending, not contributing, and not getting hits on advertisements.
Democracy and Capitalism are beautiful things. Show your lack of support for them by going to a country where those things aren't are, and never go on the internet so that you're "sheltered" from all the "evil" freedoms in the world.

*
P.S. Thanks for the negative rep saying that I encourage pedophiles. Check your page to read the neg rep with me saying how much you're Stalin. Oh wai-see what I did there?*

(Normally I post in purple, but in this thread, I can make my posts colorful without using all purple)


----------



## soulnova (Nov 12, 2010)

> Writing about that action of harm against a child is not a crime, and rightfully legal.




Yes, but again, you must understand one thing... the Mother Bear side of *ANY* society will pull it down. It doesn't matter if that's is legal to write or publish it. This is not just someone who decided he doesn't like it. It's the majority who want it down because, the idea of protecting the children is almost universal and goes beyond ANY law or rights any country might have.


Also, with the GTA example, there are no kids there. You can't kill them. Dragon Age and Fable has children interaction but you can't kill them like other enemies. No shooter that I know of has children as viable targets. In The Sims, adults can't even date teens, let alone children, and this is supposed to be a "do whatever you want" game. Slapping prostitutes, turn your character gay, go kill indiscriminately... yeah, sure go ahead. Many people don't like that and will voice their concerns...


...But the moment you start steeping into "hurting kids" territory, *you will get ripped off by a enraged mob*. Is as simple as that. It doesn't matter how artistic your work is, or how free your country is supposed to be. You can't fight against one of strongest emotions of humankind... protect your children. 


If your perception tells you this is no threat for children, you then will not care about it. But the great majority feel this is a real threat and will do what they can to eliminate it. Never underestimate the power of this basic human emotion.


----------



## Adonis (Nov 12, 2010)

You guys never cease to amaze me.

Not only do you guys quite typically misunderstand the first amendment argument (corporations responding to negative backlash by removing an offending product OR preemptively exercising their discretion as a private company is *NOT* censorship), but argue that anyone who is revolted by a guidebook on child rape is being a prude. What the fuck happened to standards? There's nothing malicious about boycotting a product. That's consumer sovereignty in action.

And as others have said, Amazon has acted cravenly before; why the fuck would "Child Rape for Dummies" be the book they stand their ground on?


----------



## soulnova (Nov 12, 2010)

Adonis said:


> There's nothing malicious about boycotting a product. That's consumer sovereignty in action.
> 
> And as others have said, Amazon has acted cravenly before; why the fuck would "Child Rape for Dummies" be the book they stand their ground on?



Pretty much this.


----------



## Shɑnɑ (Nov 12, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> Terra wants to live in a world where every *idea* she disagrees with is illegal. If she doesn't like it, it must be destroyed!



I'm not going to bother to read the rest of you post, but are you defending the idea of _'how to get away with fondling little kids'_? Because that's how it seems.

The idea of pedophilia should be destroyed, no doubt about it.

Its not an *IDEA*, its preaching the _rules_ and _how to's_ of child rape.


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 12, 2010)

Farfalla. said:


> I'm not going to bother to read the rest of you post,


*Because you did this ^^*


Farfalla. said:


> but are you defending the idea of _'how to get away with fondling little kids'_?


*Your question wasn't answered.*



Farfalla. said:


> The idea of pedophilia should be destroyed, no doubt about it.


*You could get a lot of people to agree with you if you interchange the word, "pedophilia" with any of the following: gays, jews, blacks, women, etc. You get the point. The ability to control what people think is too powerful, no matter what.*



Farfalla. said:


> Its not an *IDEA*, its preaching the _rules_ and _how to's_ of child rape.


*Somehow we live with books that detail exactly how to assassinate people and how to not get caught. They preach the rules and the how to's of erasing someone else from this world.*


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 12, 2010)

Farfalla. said:


> I'm not going to bother to read the rest of you post, but are you defending the idea of _'how to get away with fondling little kids'_? Because that's how it seems.
> 
> The idea of pedophilia should be destroyed, no doubt about it.
> 
> Its not an *IDEA*, its preaching the _rules_ and _how to's_ of child rape.



We're defending the idea of NOT banning or destroying books with content that we disagree with.

If that's suddenly acceptable then I'm wondering where all this outrage was for books like the Turner Diaries which have inspired real life violence against many innocent people.  Why are these books ok to sell but not this one?


----------



## soulnova (Nov 12, 2010)

> You could get a lot of people to agree with you if you interchange the word, "pedophilia" with any of the following: gays, jews, blacks, women, etc.



Ahem... excuse me again Toroxus, what you don't take into account is that each of those groups have children... and they'll do *WHATEVER IT TAKES*, to make sure they are safe.

Seems like I need to repeat myself...




> ...But the moment you start steeping into "hurting kids" territory, *you will get ripped off by a enraged mob*. Is as simple as that. It doesn't matter how artistic your work is, or how free your country is supposed to be. You can't fight against one of strongest emotions of humankind... protect your children.




Laws and rights mean shit to people when someone endorses the touching and fondling of kids.


I dare you to go into a shopping mall and say loudly "I defend the right to publish The p*d*p****'s Guide to Love and Pleasure!".  You are totally free to do that, but it will be very likely that someone is going to take a bat and break your skull while people pass by cheering at your attacker. You can't say such a thing and expect people to not react against it. They are protecting their children, like it or not. And you can't blame them.


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 12, 2010)

soulnova said:


> I dare you to go into a shopping mall and say loudly "I defend the right to publish The p*d*p****'s Guide to Love and Pleasure!".  You are totally free to do that, but it will be very likely that someone is going to take a* bat and break your skull while people pass by cheering at your attacker*. You can't say such a thing and expect people to not react against it. They are protecting their children, like it or not. And you can't blame them.



*Exactly the point I made on page 11. And like I said on page 11, such actions are detrimental to the psychological health of children and society.*


----------



## soulnova (Nov 12, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> *Exactly the point I made on page 11. And like I said on page 11, such actions are detrimental to the psychological health of children and society.*




Sadly, that's not true. As I said before I have many abused friends who would have certainly been gratefull if someone had went to such extend to make sure they weren't touched or raped. If it happened now, they would be the guys with the bat in the first place. 

Sorry, I didn't read the full text of that post as it wasn't broken down into easy to the eyes paragraphs. :S


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 12, 2010)

soulnova said:


> I dare you to go into a shopping mall and say loudly "I defend the right to publish The p*d*p****'s Guide to Love and Pleasure!".  You are totally free to do that, *but it will be very likely that someone is going to take a bat and break your skull while people pass by cheering at your attacker. *You can't say such a thing and expect people to not react against it. They are protecting their children, like it or not. And you can't blame them.



What point exactly do you think you're making?  That you're right because violent mobs would attack us for thinking differently than you?


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 12, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> Terra wants to live in a world where every *idea* she disagrees with is illegal. If she doesn't like it, it must be destroyed!



Your post was funny  Someone a little butthurt over a neg? 

Yes, I would like to live in a world where one doesn't condon the rape of a child or condone a book teaching one to do it.

Yet obviously you seem to think its his right to teach other rapists to rape a child. Obviously you have problems. If the book had been about a Pedo, then that's different. But it wasn't. It was a MANUAL on how to rape a child and get away with it.

Oh no! I want to protect children! How evil of me! Oh no, I'm not protecting a child rapist! How evil of me!



Maybe you should experience a older man raping you. OR maybe you should take a chance to talk to raped children -- victims -- and see how f*** they have become because of people like you defending a Pedo teaching other Pedos to rape children. 

Maybe that will change your views about the issue, or at least see how wrong the book is.

But okay! I'm gonna practice my sense of rights and the law and make a book about having an adult rape someone named Tirexos and it will also be teaching others how to do it.


----------



## soulnova (Nov 12, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> What point exactly do you think you're making?  That you're right because violent mobs would attack us for *thinking differently* than you?



What 'thinking differently' than me? You mean the "_touching children's genitals is totally awesome and ok_" idea? Well, yes, someone will attack you on some way. This is not a concept like race or religion or art or politics. This is an almost universal sentiment. Tell that line to anyone. Tell your mother, tell your neighbor next door, tell that to the little girl playing in the park. At best the people that love you will frown upon and stop talking or scream at you, others will punch you in the face or report you to the authorities and some others will go all out to get you.  

Is pretty much a natural and obvious response. 

People reacted with bad reviews "beating" down that book for lack of a physical presence. Again, most parents will do whatever it takes to protect their children, and that's fine by me. Besides, they just reviewed a book, they didn't beat him up (that we know of).


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 12, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> We're defending the idea of NOT banning or destroying books with content that we disagree with.
> 
> If that's suddenly acceptable then I'm wondering where all this outrage was for books like the Turner Diaries which have inspired real life violence against many innocent people.  Why are these books ok to sell but not this one?



Can you tell me what Turner Diaries was about? And whether it is analogous and how. To see if that example was analogous to this book. Because someone mentioned GTA which was not a fit example.


----------



## Izumoshep (Nov 12, 2010)

Thankfully Australia doesn't have a silly law protecting a paedophiles rights to free speech. That book would never be allowed in Australia..thankfully.


----------



## soulnova (Nov 12, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> If that's suddenly acceptable then I'm wondering where all this outrage was for books like the Turner Diaries which have inspired real life violence against many innocent people.  Why are these books ok to sell but not this one?




The key word is *CHILDREN*. 

Encourage the idea of touching children and someone is going to get all the backlash society can give you. Why is that so difficult to understand? You just don't expect other wise regarding ANY kind of children. Lets see...

You are walking through the forest and you find a bear cub looking at you. You...
a) ...Try to hug him and take it home! They totally want my love! They are so cute. 
b) Get the fuck out of there. As far away as you can. 

If you choose A, I'm sorry to tell you but you got killed soon afterwards. Mother Bear does not care you love bears. What she saw was a threat and you must be eliminated. 

If you choose B, congratulations, you live for another day! The same applies with any delicate issue regarding the physical and psychological wellbeing of human children and someone getting pleasure at their expense.

The GTA can't be used to call on free speech on media. GTA does not have children on it.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 13, 2010)

soulnova said:


> What 'thinking differently' than me? You mean the "_touching children's genitals is totally awesome and ok_" idea? Well, yes, someone will attack you on some way. This is not a concept like race or religion or art or politics. This is an almost universal sentiment. Tell that line to anyone. Tell your mother, tell your neighbor next door, tell that to the little girl playing in the park. At best the people that love you will frown upon and stop talking or scream at you, others will punch you in the face or report you to the authorities and some others will go all out to get you.
> 
> Is pretty much a natural and obvious response.
> 
> People reacted with bad reviews "beating" down that book for lack of a physical presence. Again, most parents will do whatever it takes to protect their children, and that's fine by me. Besides, they just reviewed a book, they didn't beat him up (that we know of).



By think differently I mean thinking that its wrong to ban and destroy books because you find them offensive.  What about that is so difficult for you to understand?

If you can ban this book for being offensive then you can ban any book for being offensive.

We don't support the content of the book we just also don't support demanding its removal when plenty of other offensive books are allowed.



Narutofann12 said:


> Can you tell me what Turner Diaries was about? And whether it is analogous and how. To see if that example was analogous to this book. Because someone mentioned GTA which was not a fit example.



The turner diaries is a book about a future race war in which all non-whites and jews are killed.  It inspires violence against people of other races and the federal government to this day and was one of the primary inspirations for Timothy McVeigh's attack.

The FBI even refers to it as  "bible of the racist right".



soulnova said:


> The key word is *CHILDREN*.
> 
> Encourage the idea of touching children and someone is going to get all the backlash society can give you. Why is that so difficult to understand? You just don't expect other wise regarding ANY kind of children. Lets see...
> 
> ...



So....its ok to have books like the Turner Diaries that encourage violence against innocent people?  Just so I'm clear the key point where it suddenly becomes ok to ban books is when they involve children?

If that's the line then should we ban and destroy all copies of Lolita and all books like it?

The content of the book is irrelevant to whether or not someone should be allowed to write it, read it buy it or whatever.  

I have not, do not and will not ever support the banning or destruction of books because if you can do it with one book you can do it with _any_ book.  Now _you_ may say "well its only books about children".  Then the next guy after you says "Well if we do it with those books why not these?  Or these" and it opens all kinds of doors.

Now if you want to give this guy crap personally about writing the book that's fine.  You're free to hate him and condemn him for it and I'll support that whole heatedly.  But I won't support trying to prevent the book from ever being distributed as many are trying to do.


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 13, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> Can you tell me what Turner Diaries was about? And whether it is analogous and how. To see if that example was analogous to this book. Because someone mentioned GTA which was not a fit example.



Narutofann, I was not the one who originally brought up GTA. It was mentioned as an example when I suggested that other forms of art have the potential to inspire violence. Nevertheless, I decided to placate and continue using it. At no point during my argument with Terra did I mean to suggest that GTA has _more_ potential than the book we are discussing, and if it seemed like that, I apologize and will clarify now. The _only_ comment I made with regards to the video game was this:

p*d*p**** Book --> Does not physically harm anyone in and of itself.
Grand Theft Auto --> Does not physically harm anyone in and of itself.

p*d*p**** Book --> Has the potential to inspire crime.
Grand Theft Auto --> Has the potential to inspire crime.

Even the opposing arguments agree that, on a basic level, this is true. One may indeed be _more_ dangerous and _more_ in need of being restricted from the general population, but when looking at it on an individual basis, both have the potential to do the same thing in different people. As of right now, you are the only person arguing against this. You may continue to ignore my posts as you just did, but you have not countered anyone's point.


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 13, 2010)

This is the kind of thing I can see people reading just for a laugh.  If only it weren't actually for pedophiles it could have been an interesting foray into darker humour.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 13, 2010)

Winchester Gospel said:


> Narutofann, I was not the one who originally brought up GTA. It was mentioned as an example when I suggested that other forms of art have the potential to inspire violence. Nevertheless, I decided to placate and continue using it. At no point during my argument with Terra did I mean to suggest that GTA has _more_ potential than the book we are discussing, and if it seemed like that, I apologize and will clarify now. The _only_ comment I made with regards to the video game was this:
> 
> p*d*p**** Book --> Does not physically harm anyone in and of itself.
> Grand Theft Auto --> Does not physically harm anyone in and of itself.
> ...



First off, the above post was not directed at you so I am surprised you reacted.

How dangerous something is and what kind of potential it has to inspire crime, and whether it is meant to directly inspire crime is the issue. 

Someone could say that A Children picture book has the potential to inspire crime, like this book but the potential is so minuscule, which makes it a bad analogy and a bad argument.  It is missing the important point which is how much potential and danger it posses. That is why I was asking him to clarify if his example is like your bad GTA example or something else. And it seems his example is not your GTA example. Also, and take note, whether in the material the author is asking people to act violently, and whether people who read the book on their own without any instruction or author intention, act violently, also plays some role in how we rate the material.

For example, someone attempted to murder Jodie Foster for making the Taxi Driver and becoming obsessed with her. This is something different with someone being inspired to kill someone because someone told him to.

In any case I hope you finally realize that my problem with your analogy is that saying that other things have the potential to cause harm doesn't say to us anything. What matters is what kind of potential we are talking about and how that material compares with this book.

Arguments such as yours who don't care about the important details of the issue are fallacious. Hopefully you understand why I criticized your example and analogy, and you don't complain any more about my criticism. (your criticism of my criticism is also fallacious, and. 





> At no point during my argument with Terra did I mean to suggest that GTA has more potential than the book we are discussing, and if it seemed like that, I apologize and will clarify now.


 this strawman was unnecessary. In general this was a bad and unnecessary response from you.


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 13, 2010)

What you are saying is exactly the reason why freedom of speech is being brought into this discussion. Do I agree that Grand Theft Auto and it's ilk are less dangerous than this book? Yes, I do. But ultimately, that is my opinion. And while we may all share that opinion on this particular case, because it concerns something as unfathomable as sexual crimes against minors, we are _not_ going to share that opinion on many other things. You could just as easily make this argument to ban all forms of religious text, as it is easy to prove why they cause more violence then this p*d*p**** book ever will. And yet we will never do that, simply because there are large groups of people who do not find these books dangerous at all; only dangerous in the wrong hands.


----------



## soulnova (Nov 13, 2010)

Sorry, Tsukiyomi. I'm not saying is right to ban or destroy books. I'm just stating the obvious here. 

People can deal with books about different ideologies... sometimes not as well as hoped but they try to do so. Sadly, this is not an "ideology"... this is a guide to actions so horrible that makes children commit suicide and throw their life away on shame and guilt. I have seen it happen more times than I can take it.

What I'm saying is that people will take their chances to stop a guide encouraging these actions. And those who don't take direct approach will turn a blind eye and nod in agreement... as it already happened with Amazon. The book is down. It is done and the world didn't crumble... right? I don't see people rioting in the streets, dancing around a fire... is simply common sense.

Heck, we know what happened with the Quran burning. The world went "DONT DO IT", me included. In this particular case *the world* said "STOP THIS MADNESS". Pedophilia is a issue that knows no borders... I asked Mexicans, Brazilians, Americans and Canadians and they all agreed that for this specific topic, yes, the book had to be taken down. 


In short, we could both agree on the following:  
*Banning books = Bad 
Pedophiles = Bad
Children > Everything else**


Is good to see that you stay behind your ideals and uphold the rights of others. Me? I'm willing to make exceptions depending in a case-by-case basis.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 13, 2010)

I don't like the "there are infinite opinions on an issue", (if I am not mistaken the relativist argument) either.  I don't think that all opinions are equal, but at the same time it doesn't mean that if two people are arguing that necessarily one of the two has an informed opinion on a subject. Still the "we all have our opinions and they may be wrong so we can not judge" argument does not work. In this case as I said before, this book is not on the same category as Lolita or GTA. So it might be right to restrict in some way the one but not the other.   It is not the same as Religious books either, nor is a society opposing books in favor of raping children going to have the negative consequences of it restricting the Koran to mention an example. I am not afraid of this causing a slippery slope either. *I am* in favor of private organizations declining to publish it or associate with it, or distribute and sell it, due to its content. And for consumers of doing the same and not buying it. And encourage others to do the same if they would have bought it.  Which I count as some kind of restriction imposed by the society itself freely choosing to not associate with it. As for whether the government should ban it or not, I am undecided but leaning towards no banning. But of course ban it from School libraries and such places at the very least.


----------



## Winchester Gospel (Nov 13, 2010)

I don't like the relativist argument either. It's ultimately unrealistic; everybody, no matter what they say on the outside, believes that their own opinion is more righteous than anyone else's. If they don't, they are simply lacking in confidence, or are possibly uninformed on the subject. But the relativist argument is used to protect the rights of the minority, and it is the same reason why the utilitarianism argument always fails. Right now, everyone in this thread is in the majority; we don't think this book is right. Discussing this particular book, it is very easy to say you don't care about relativism. But those laws are held with such esteem for a reason; because if they weren't, one day, some of us are not going to be among the majority opinion. And when that case comes, those people's disagreements will become absolutely meaningless.



Narutofann12 said:


> *I am* in favor of private organizations declining to publish it or associate with it, or distribute and sell it, due to its content. And for consumers of doing the same and not buying it. Which I count as some kind of restriction imposed by the society itself freely choosing to not associate with it. As for whether the government should ban it or not, I am undecided but leaning towards no banning. But of course ban it from School libraries and such places at the very least.



I never disagreed with any of this. In fact, I even took a step further than you and said I could be okay with the government banning it as well. So, there isn't any argument to be had.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Nov 13, 2010)

> I don't like the relativist argument either. It's ultimately unrealistic; everybody, no matter what they say on the outside, believes that their own opinion is more righteous than anyone else's. If they don't, they are simply lacking in confidence, or are possibly uninformed on the subject. But the relativist argument is used to protect the rights of the minority, and it is the same reason why the utilitarianism argument always fails. Right now, everyone in this thread is in the majority; we don't think this book is right. Discussing this particular book, it is very easy to say you don't care about relativism. But those laws are held with such esteem for a reason; because if they weren't, one day, some of us are not going to be among the majority opinion. And when that case comes, those people's disagreements will become absolutely meaningless.




If one was in favor of all democratic failsafes in a society(and since Religious books were mentioned, there are many), to be removed that would had been a different issue.
I guess your "what if you are not the majority argument doesn't work on me for a peculiar reason. Because even when I am the majority I don't want limitless power to decide on what to ban. So I am aware of the whole "don't give power that can be abused" thing. But it is possible for a society or even state to restrict something without giving unlimited room for abuse.
 We can judge how dangerous something is and if it deserves of a reaction and when an exception to the rule appears and it gets such a reaction like this one, it doesn't mean that all principles are going to be thrown to the garbage and this would be a precedent abused by others. As for the respect of rights, there several fail safes so if in fact governments can decide to do some things without worrying that it would create a catastrophe.  The Majority wants to uphold these rights, and the constitution of western countries protect them. And people would need to conform to the majority to get votes.  If someone has the view "Only in this case" that view doesn't leave much room for abuse. What we should be worried about is people who are a lot more ban happy. But those kind of people are not going to be convinced by any "What if you are not the majority opinions". My answer to your what if I am not a majority is that I am not in favor of having a government where the majority can easilly ban whatever the hell they like, and I don't think me or you wanting somewhat more restricted access to this book, that those problems will be created.

Hell, even countries who went more steps than anything I would suggest and banned Hitler's book to mention an example, don't in my opinion face the problem you are suggesting. Because other than Nazi related books they have failsafes that are hard to bypass. And a society doesn't change views in a day. If ban happy people in any society become the majority, don't expect  arguments of "What if other ban happy people get the power", to save anyone. While that argument can be convincing to normal people I guess. As for me, from what I observed there are fail-safes against ban happy people in democracies, even in Germany and elsewhere. I don't think the slippery slope argument can really be applied here. At least as far as my"corporations should decide to not distrubute it" is concerned. (While it can be applied in the case where the ban requests are far more audacious). So things are not as scary as they seem.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 13, 2010)

Has anyone seen the witch who wrote this book, so that we may burn him/her/it?  

While living in a society afflicted with child sexual abuse do not condone the content of the book at issue here, I can see no principled distinction between constitutional protection for the type of information found in this books and protection for identical or similar information found in a vast array of fiction, nonfiction, music, electronic communication, and video programming.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 13, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Has anyone seen the witch who wrote this book, so that we may burn him/her/it?



Yeah, and he's quite sketchy looking.  Even though I know what you're getting at lol


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 13, 2010)

**sigh* You can't tell a pig it's dirty...*


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 13, 2010)

soulnova said:


> Yes, but again, you must understand one thing... the Mother Bear side of *ANY* society will pull it down. It doesn't matter if that's is legal to write or publish it. This is not just someone who decided he doesn't like it. It's the majority who want it down because, the idea of protecting the children is almost universal and goes beyond ANY law or rights any country might have.



You're missing something... You have to first define what children have to be protected from. Ie: A society will act to defend children, but different societies have different things they want to protect children from.

There's this weird as hell tribe in New Guinea (I think that's it) where boys only become adults once they have eaten the sperm of an adult. In a western society, that would be something akin to murder. In that tribe, it's common.

Then we have ancient greece.

So while the desire to protect children is generally universal, what to protect them from isn't.


----------



## kazuri (Nov 13, 2010)

The people who would do the things in this book would do them whether or not this book existed.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Nov 13, 2010)

This makes me feel physically sick.
A guideline book for pedophiles, what are people thinking?

Freedom of speech is a right that shouldn't be granted to scum like pedophiles, especially if they use it to harm children.


----------



## kazuri (Nov 13, 2010)

> Freedom of speech is a right that shouldn't be granted to scum like pedophiles, especially if they use it to harm children.



So you're ok with the book if the person who wrote it hasn't actually done anything illegal?


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Nov 13, 2010)

kazuri said:


> So you're ok with the book if the person who wrote it hasn't actually done anything illegal?



No, since the book is a guideline for pedophiles. And technically, being a p*d*p**** itself isn't illegal, but acting on it is.


----------



## kazuri (Nov 13, 2010)

So people who you admit are within the law don't share the same rights as you?

No combination of letters should be illegal. The idea of letters in a certain order being illegal is preposterous.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Nov 13, 2010)

People, who give other people a tutorial on how to molest or rape children don't deserve that right.
If I'd do something like that, you'd have every right to shut me up (at the very least).


----------



## Kue (Nov 13, 2010)

Lol, this book may help pedophiles, but think about this way: the cops will now know common tactics too.  So Amazon makes money and more pedophiles will be caught.  It's a win-win situation.


----------



## GrimaH (Nov 14, 2010)

What's the content of the book?



Toroxus said:


> **sigh* You can't tell a pig it's dirty...*



The irony...


----------



## GodOfAzure (Nov 14, 2010)

He could babysit my kids any day, he is an author after all


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 15, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> Freedom of speech is a right that shouldn't be granted to scum like pedophiles, especially if they use it to harm children.



You do realize that what you're describing is a privilege and not a right don't you?  If you can take a right away from someone or just not give it to them in the first place then it was never a right.

The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect speech no matter how offensive you find it.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

Anyone know whats actually in the book?

Does it describe ways to do illegal shit, or is like a guide book for other nations where shit like this is legal.


----------



## Romanticide (Nov 15, 2010)

Just deleted my account, i also cussed them out in my letter.



sadated_peon said:


> Anyone know whats actually in the book?
> 
> Does it describe ways to do illegal shit, or is like a guide book for other nations where shit like this is legal.



It describes things and how not to get caught. Sick bastard.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

Hollow'd Heart said:


> It describes things and how not to get caught. Sick bastard.



So it describes illegal activity?

...

wait are you calling me a sick bastard?!?
WTF did I do?


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Nov 15, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You do realize that what you're describing is a privilege and not a right don't you?  If you can take a right away from someone or just not give it to them in the first place then it was never a right.
> 
> The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect speech no matter how offensive you find it.



If it's written in the constitution, doesn't that make it a right? I'm not sure. In the German constitution they even call it a right (Recht).
Article 5 GG: "Jeder hat das *Recht*, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten..."
"Everybody has the *right* to freely voice and spread their opinion in word, writing and image..."

But I don't think it really matters, wether it's called a right or privilege.

However subparagraph 2 of this law says:
"Diese Rechte finden ihre Schranken in den Vorschriften der allgemeinen Gesetze, den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zum Schutze der Jugend und in dem Recht der persönlichen Ehre."
"These rights find their limits/boundaries in the regulations of the general laws, statutory regulations for youth protection and in the right of personal honor".

I don't know which laws other countries have for freedom of speech, but I think it's ok how Germany handles this.
I think there're cases, where people shouldn't be able to say or teach whatever they want. One of these cases is the case we have here, when it's to protect children.

Another example I can think of would be the following.
Say, someone gives a hate speech in public and in his speech he calls on the people to kill a specific group of people. I think in Germany that someone would most likely be sent to prison for some years for Volksverhetzung (=demagoguery/incitement of the people). With good reason. We all know what clever and charismatic speakers can do.
Technically he'd be robbed of his freedom of speach, too, but as I said before, there're cases, where it's for the best.


----------



## Romanticide (Nov 15, 2010)

No, the author is a sick bastard. Not you.


----------



## Ralphy♥ (Nov 15, 2010)




----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 15, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> If it's written in the constitution, doesn't that make it a right? I'm not sure. In the German constitution they even call it a right (Recht).
> Article 5 GG: "Jeder hat das *Recht*, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu ?u?ern und zu verbreiten..."
> "Everybody has the *right* to freely voice and spread their opinion in word, writing and image..."
> 
> ...



Obviously you missed the point of what I was saying.  You're saying they shouldn't get that right.  If its a right then you can't choose who gets it and who doesn't, either everyone gets it or no one.  That's what a right is, its something you _always_ get unless you willingly waive it.

The American constitution puts no explicit limitations on Freedom of speech.  Most limitations were added later on in Supreme Court decisions that brought about things like the Miller Test.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Nov 15, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Obviously you missed the point of what I was saying.  You're saying they shouldn't get that right.  If its a right then you can't choose who gets it and who doesn't, either everyone gets it or no one.  That's what a right is, its something you _always_ get unless you willingly waive it.
> 
> The American constitution puts no explicit limitations on Freedom of speech.  Most limitations were added later on in Supreme Court decisions that brought about things like the Miller Test.



I think rights are still rights, even if you put limits to them for people, who abuse that right. But that might be more of a philosophical question.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 15, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> I think rights are still rights, even if you put limits to them for people, who abuse that right. But that might be more of a philosophical question.





Eru Lawliet said:


> Freedom of speech is a right that shouldn't  be granted to scum like pedophiles, especially if they use it to harm  children.



You weren't talking about limitation.  You were talking about this entire group not having the right.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Nov 15, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You weren't talking about limitation.  You were talking about this entire group not having the right.



You're right. I should've worded that differently.
That was in response to people saying, that the book shouldn't be banned, because of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is very important, but I value the safety of children more.
Of course, the law applies to everyone, no matter whether I think that people are deserving of their rights being maintained, or not. And of course it's good that way.
My opinion of pedophiles is so low, that I don't care about their rights. To me they're more monsters than humans.

I'm glad that in Germany banning the book wouldn't go against our constitution, thanks to the limits defined in subparagraph 2. So no inner conflict there.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 15, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> You're right. I should've worded that differently.
> That was in response to people saying, that the book shouldn't be banned, because of freedom of speech. *Freedom of speech is very important, but I value the safety of children more.*
> Of course, the law applies to everyone, no matter whether I think that people are deserving of their rights being maintained, or not. And of course it's good that way.
> My opinion of pedophiles is so low, that I don't care about their rights. To me they're more monsters than humans.
> ...



I value freedom of speech more than the tiny amount of safety children in general will get from the banning of this single book.

I doubt the number of people who will try to molest children because of this book that wouldn't have done it anyway is significant.


----------



## rozzalina (Nov 15, 2010)

Now I know just what to get my Physics teacher for when he leaves 

On a serious note, banning the book will attract the attention of children and will make them want to read it so Amazon shouldn't stop selling the book imo.


----------



## siyrean (Nov 16, 2010)

rozzalina said:


> Now I know just what to get my Physics teacher for when he leaves
> 
> On a serious note, banning the book will attract the attention of children and will make them want to read it so Amazon shouldn't stop selling the book imo.



The problem isn't the general public or children reading it. It's those few who would take it and put it to use. 

As long as it's not the government interfering - private companies can do as they like. How ever amazon selling it is not protecting free speach because this man can still sell his book whether they carried it or not. If they had an unblemished track record of selling any book anyone wanted them to then, yeah more power to them, but this is not the case so we're left asking why? It doesn't put them in a good light at all.

Personally I dislike hypocrites but I hate those who prejudge and jump to conclusions more like so so many apparent reviewers. Sure they may be right(I bet they are) but am I going to take their word for it? Hell no, I was brought up to look at actual evidence before joining the moral out rage in ignorance and hearsay.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 16, 2010)

Xion said:


> I love the 500 soccer moms that "reviewed" it and said that they would never buy another thing from Amazon for selling a book they disagree with.
> 
> Free speech isn't worth a dime if it's not protected.



oh my god, 500 people are going to stop buying slightly pornographic novels, amazon will most certainly go bankrupt after this


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 16, 2010)

I wonder if they'd do the same if they sold a book about how to murder people...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 16, 2010)

Hollow'd Heart said:


> Just deleted my account, i also cussed them out in my letter.
> 
> 
> 
> It describes things and how not to get caught. Sick bastard.



Wow, Hollow'd Heart---cursing? 



Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> I wonder if they'd do the same if they sold a book about how to murder people...


You mean like Anarchist Cook Book? I think they pulled that too. 

Look, we get it, you like to defend pedophiles, I think the track record speaks for itself, but this is getting kind of sad and this was a poor example. A business has a right to pull something if people bitch, people have a right to bitch. And while this guy has a right to write whatever depraved shit he wants...no one has to sell it.


----------



## Sephiroth (Nov 16, 2010)

So how is the book Yokai?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You mean like Anarchist Cook Book? I think they pulled that too.
> 
> Look, we get it, you like to defend pedophiles, I think the track record speaks for itself, but this is getting kind of sad and this was a poor example. A business has a right to pull something if people bitch, people have a right to bitch. And while this guy has a right to write whatever depraved shit he wants...no one has to sell it.





Apparently it teaches you how to make bombs and other dangerous shit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 16, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Apparently it teaches you how to make bombs and other dangerous shit.


And your point being? I said I think they took it down, I didn't say it was a definite and on top of that if no one complains about it they don't usually remove stuff. 

I love how people love to get on this forum and bitch about shit that other citizens are doing to protect themselves and others, this isn't an infringement of rights, its an exercise of protest which we all have the right too. 

if I don't like Wal Mart selling unedited CDs I can protest. Guess what, they don't sell them a lot of places for fear of the trouble it will cause, do you bitch about free speech then? 

No, you go buy it at fucking Target because that's your choice as a consumer. 

But if I tell Amazon "if you don't stop selling this, I will stop buying from you" that's how business works. 

What hollow'd heart did is a perfect example, she's taking her business else where in protest. 

I don't shop on amazon for a different reason, when I want books, I want them right the fuck now, not ten months from now (it took them ten months to get me a book once)


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And your point being? I said I think they took it down, I didn't say it was a definite and on top of that if no one complains about it they don't usually remove stuff.
> 
> I love how people love to get on this forum and bitch about shit that other citizens are doing to protect themselves and others, this isn't an infringement of rights, its an exercise of protest which we all have the right too.
> 
> ...


I never mentioned anything about the rights of people to protest nor am I bitching about it, we're just pointing out the hypocrisy of people and their knee-jerk reactions when it comes to children.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You mean like Anarchist Cook Book? I think they pulled that too.



The anarchist cookbook is, afaik, about making weapons. Not about techniques to murder people.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Look, we get it, you like to defend pedophiles, I think the track record speaks for itself, but this is getting kind of sad and this was a poor example.



Can you tell me exactly HOW I am defending paedophiles here? I'm making a simple statement based on a realistic assumption:

1: Murder is a worse crime than rape
2: Thus a book about how to commit murder must be a worse book than a book about rape.
3: If Amazon pulls a book about rape then they should also pull a book about murder.

My prime interest with this subject is in hypocricy and hysteria. Both being quite present 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A business has a right to pull something if people bitch, people have a right to bitch. And while this guy has a right to write whatever depraved shit he wants...no one has to sell it.



Of course.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 16, 2010)

O wow this thread is still hot....


----------



## Talon. (Nov 16, 2010)

dude! i want that book for the lulz


----------



## Mider T (Dec 20, 2010)




----------



## Petenshi (Dec 20, 2010)

Saw that, not sure what they are holding for.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 20, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Saw that, not sure what they are holding for.



"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the* Florida obscenity statute* *that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.*


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Dec 20, 2010)

Narutofann12 said:


> "You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the* Florida obscenity statute* *that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.*



Bizarre. Does that mean the book contains pictures, or are they actually arresting him for the written word?


----------



## Eros (Dec 20, 2010)

I find it sickening that such a book even exists, let alone that a fortune 500 company was selling it. But then, I think they're right that pulling it just made it more popular. Also, having articles about it will also increase popularity of the book.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 20, 2010)

^I guess you haven't kept up to date/read the thread.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Dec 20, 2010)

He's going to get out because the charge is paper-thin and any lawyer with a quarter of a brain will be able to fight it. Basically the Florida law states that you cannot buy/sell any products in Florida that depict children engaged in harmful acts. However, the man lives in Colorado and the police officer bought the book over the internet and had it shipped to Florida himself.

Once this hits the courts, the lawyer is simply going to reverse this on the cop and point out the fact that the police officer BOUGHT a piece of literature depicting children in harmful situations, and that he bought it out of state. This is going to get the author off the hook, and possibly in a very bizarre twist end up with the cop being charged with breaking the law himself (as he is a florida citizen and purchased the book that is illegal in Florida).


----------



## Eros (Dec 20, 2010)

Mider T said:


> ^I guess you haven't kept up to date/read the thread.



I edited my post.


----------



## Petenshi (Dec 20, 2010)

Ejaculation Storm said:


> He's going to get out because the charge is paper-thin and any lawyer with a quarter of a brain will be able to fight it. Basically the Florida law states that you cannot buy/sell any products in Florida that depict children engaged in harmful acts. However, the man lives in Colorado and the police officer bought the book over the internet and had it shipped to Florida himself.
> 
> Once this hits the courts, the lawyer is simply going to reverse this on the cop and point out the fact that the police officer BOUGHT a piece of literature depicting children in harmful situations, and that he bought it out of state. This is going to get the author off the hook, and possibly in a very bizarre twist end up with the cop being charged with breaking the law himself (as he is a florida citizen and purchased the book that is illegal in Florida).



I'm cool with that ending.


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 20, 2010)

Florida's a real shithole. I'm sure the Wahhabis vacation there too, just so they can lop the hands off of thieves as a part of the deluxe Disney World package.


----------



## Terra Branford (Dec 20, 2010)

Serves him right, the sicko.

What kind of human writes about how to harm a child? Ugh..

Nasty! Disgusting! Lowlife!


----------



## -Dargor- (Dec 20, 2010)

Ejaculation Storm said:


> in a very bizarre twist end up with the cop being charged with breaking the law himself (as he is a florida citizen and purchased the book that is illegal in Florida).


Because all cops that sell drugs under cover during an investigation go to jail afterwards right.



Anyway, sicko's going to jail, end of story.



> Officials said the book talked about safe sex and avoiding injury to children, grooming and preparing children for sex, and teaching children how to lie to their parents.





> He actually provided a how-to guide to commit sexual battery against children,





> The message is very clear: If you write a book, if you sell that book, if you transmit that book to anyone in our jurisdiction, then we will investigate you and arrest, because our goal is protect the children,



Good luck on making any jury not put that freak in prison. If he doesn't get knifed/shot before that is.


----------



## Bioness (Dec 20, 2010)

They Arrested him on bullshit charges, same thing happened with the Wikileaks guy, they want to arrest them for lulz but legally can't, so they try to find loopholes


----------



## Momoka (Dec 20, 2010)

This book will go down as one of the most controversial book in the history of books. 
Also the pedos will now want their rights to love children.


----------



## Enclave (Dec 21, 2010)

The guy's a sick fuck, that's for sure.  That doesn't mean though that he broke a law in the creation of that book.  His lawyer is likely going to get him off the charges, maybe even open a civil case for wrongful arrest since based on what I've read about this book it doesn't depict children in sexual situations or even depicts children at all.

If there's a law they can arrest him on then awesome, do it.  But if this guy didn't break a law then don't try to trump up charges.

Really, I think the only reason they went this route is because they couldn't find any evidence that he ever actually molested a child.

Also, it would make more sense to take Amazon to court since they're the ones who chose to distribute the book to Florida.  So even IF this book is deemed illegal, it wasn't this guy's decision for it to be available to Florida, that's all on the distributer.


----------



## Terra Branford (Dec 21, 2010)

Bioness said:


> They Arrested him on bullshit charges, same thing happened with the Wikileaks guy, they want to arrest them for lulz but legally can't, so they try to find loopholes



As Dargor posted >



-Dargor- said:


> Anyway, sicko's going to jail, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hardly call that bullshit charges.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 21, 2010)

Man I fucking thought we were done with this? If the dude wants to write books on how to hump little boys that's his problem.


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 21, 2010)

It's a pity Niccolo Machiavelli isn't alive today. Florida could have him arrested for crimes against humanity.


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 21, 2010)

*So Florida can say what books can be distributed there? Isn't Florida a state under the United States of America Federal government? You know, some guys wrote a few rules for the new America, and you know the first law that came to mind?*


> *Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.*


*Congress, a group of government officials, are forbidden from enacting a law or any ordinance or order that limits, reduces, or otherwise prevents a speaker from his freedom of speech, or the message he or she intends to convey.

So let me get this straight:

Florida Officials, a group of government officials working under the First Amendment, have enacted a law or ordinance or order that limits, reduces, or otherwise prevents a freedom of speech, or collection of words and pages, and thus do so intend to prevent the message that the author intends to convey.

I guess Florida figured that those Founding Fuckers got it all wrong, they know how to handle this. That man wrote words that they don't like, and they know that they can pretend that written words is equal in scale to a crime against another human being. I'm sure they are proud that they are punishing someone for thinking differently than they do, and while they are at it, let's give a great quote that does so exactly explain that we are controlling which books can be published or distributed or read, so that we are controlling those ideas which we do so choose to be acceptable. I guess tomorrow they'll find something they disagree with in the opponent candidates biography and do so make it a criminal offense to distribute it?

Charged with distribution of obscene material with a minor in harmful conduct? What a fucking joke. It's a collection of words describing a hypothetical situation. What is this guy really going to be charged with? Publishing a book? Even if the book described a real situation involving real people in where a crime was committed, it still isn't illegal unless that child is still a minor. Let's go out on a limb and assume it truly is a guide on how to commit a crime against a minor. So he could be bullshittingly charged with Accessory in Sexual Battery Against a Minor? Even if the jury was scared of siding as a "pedo-supporter", which they will be. This would be appealed to the highest court.

I can understand why the Sheriff is "Frustrated" by the First Amendment, because he wants to control the power that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from doing. Maybe he should follow the lead of the other 49 states in their inaction, because they don't want to get their asses kicks for violating the First Amendment so blatantly and fucking up even more by shameless explaining that you did so.

As for that statement about pictures of minors in the book, if that were the case they would have came down on him like a ton of bricks: Amazon would have reported and removed the book in a heartbeat, and he would be charged with child pornography. Clearly that didn't happen.

There is only one way around the First Amendment, other than the bullshit Censorship Laws of the FCC: Imminent Lawless Action. And guess what? That doesn't even apply to this remotely. So guess what? Those Florida Officials are up shit-creek without a paddle because they have nothing on this man and they are violating the First Amendment, which he can nail them on.*


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Dec 21, 2010)

-Dargor- said:


> Because all cops that sell drugs under cover during an investigation go to jail afterwards right.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, sicko's going to jail, end of story.



You have no idea what you're talking about. 

You probably shouldn't open your mouth about stuff you don't understand.



Terra Branford said:


> As Dargor posted >
> 
> 
> 
> I hardly call that bullshit charges.



You also have no idea what you're talking about. If you don't understand the law, don't try and talk about the law as if you do.


----------



## Wilykat (Dec 21, 2010)

Momoka said:


> This book will go down as one of the most controversial book in the history of books.
> Also the pedos will now want their rights to love children.



Pretty hard to top "Show Me" by Will Mcbride.  People selling this got arrested. People buying this got arrested. Publisher in USA got hit pretty hard because the book actually shows nekkid kids.

I remember this well.  When the book came out, it was supposed to be the best book for showing kids about sexuality but pedo was also drooling over this and court in USA ruled this book is illegal because it violated child porn.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Dec 21, 2010)

I wonder how many of the pro freedom of speech people here, would still be of that opinion if either they themselves, their children or anyone else they care about was ever a victim of a p*d*p****.

And even if there isn't any law against writing this book in the US, teaching people how to rape little children (or anyone) is a crime in my eyes.

I'm generally pro freedom of speech, of course, but this is different.
Even if anything else doesn't apply, to me, pedophiles aren't human and shouldn't be treated as such. That means, the constitution shouldn't protect them. If you think about it that way, this doesn't even go against freedom of speech.

I don't understand how pedophiles can even live with themselves. If I ever discovered such tendencies in myself and noticed I find it hard to control these urges, I'd either kill myself or, if I'm too much of a coward, go to a mental institution (one where they don't let you out).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 21, 2010)

I think that there's some precedent that shows freedom of speech isn't free if it can go on to cause harm, and you could say that this is exactly like that. I mean you can get in trouble for yelling fire in a crowded theater and even cursing in public--no one cares about that. But a book for pedophiles, sound the alarms.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 21, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> I wonder how many of the pro freedom of speech people here, would still be of that opinion if either they themselves, their children or anyone else they care about was ever a victim of a p*d*p****.
> 
> And even if there isn't any law against writing this book in the US, teaching people how to rape little children (or anyone) is a crime in my eyes.
> 
> ...



Pedophiles are human and not all of them are molestors. I don't mean to be an apologist and I think child rapists should get the death penelty but a lot of them can't live with themselves. Many even take special medications to surpress their urges or chemical castration to make themselves asexual.  Don't get me wrong, I think this guy should be arrested for writing a disgusting book that is actually harmful.

I feel sympathy for the pedophiles who do feel shameful and don't hurt kids but I despise those who hurt children and actually feel pride about their sexuality.


----------



## DeLarge (Dec 21, 2010)

I wonder what it said in the product description section of said book  ...


----------



## soulnova (Dec 21, 2010)

DeLarge said:


> I wonder what it said in the product description section of said book  ...



Uhm, somewhere in the first pages was the amazon description. Freaked me out. 




> I wonder how many of the pro freedom of speech people here, would still be of that opinion if either they themselves, their children or anyone else they care about was ever a victim of a p*d*p****.



Eru Lawliet, all my raped friends (which sadly are more than I wish) agree the book should be banned and maybe have 5 minutes alone with the writer . Usually they are advocates of freedom of speech, but of course they have tasted first hand what these horrible people can do to children. They will take whatever measures to keep other children safe.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 21, 2010)

There one of those few times when a book is actually immoral.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Dec 21, 2010)

The Cheat said:


> Pedophiles are human and not all of them are molestors. I don't mean to be an apologist and I think child rapists should get the death penelty but a lot of them can't live with themselves. Many even take special medications to surpress their urges or chemical castration to make themselves asexual.  Don't get me wrong, I think this guy should be arrested for writing a disgusting book that is actually harmful.
> 
> I feel sympathy for the pedophiles who do feel shameful and don't hurt kids but I despise those who hurt children and actually feel pride about their sexuality.



You have a point. I guess you can feel sorry for those, who suffer for their urges and have never done (and won't do) anything to anyone.



soulnova said:


> Uhm, somewhere in the first pages was the amazon description. Freaked me out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry to hear that about your friends.
I share their sentiments.
I worst thing is, that the perpetrators are, more often than not, family members or close friends of the family and many cases (or maybe most, I'm not sure) are never reported.


----------



## soulnova (Dec 21, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> I'm sorry to hear that about your friends.
> I share their sentiments.
> I worst thing is, that the perpetrators are, more often than not, family members or close friends of the family and many cases (or maybe most, I'm not sure) are never reported.



Yes, pretty much this. None of them reported their attacks to anyone but me and some other close friends years later. Most of them were attacked by strangers in the street, I don't know of any with family abusers. One of them was even attacked for a second time by a random guy but she managed to get away. She had taken up to herself to become stronger to avoid any other incident as she had been powerless the first time.

Every time we see a child playing alone in the street, we shake our heads. Those parents don't seem to have a clue of what they are gambling with their children.


----------



## Mintaka (Dec 21, 2010)

Again, creepy book is creepy.


----------



## Terra Branford (Dec 21, 2010)

> Pedophiles are human and not all of them are molestors. I don't mean to be an apologist and I think child rapists should get the death penelty but a lot of them can't live with themselves. Many even take special medications to surpress their urges or chemical castration to make themselves asexual. Don't get me wrong, I think this guy should be arrested for writing a disgusting book that is actually harmful.


Those are good points, but what to do with the actions of a man who writes a book like this?

There are some people who seem to think writing a guide to harm children sexually, teach them to lie about it, coax them and prepare them for sexual intercourse, has done nothing wrong.

What should be the course of action taken at this point? When something like this happens? Because some people seem to think that this man shouldn't be charged with what he's been charged by.



> I worst thing is, that the perpetrators are, more often than not, family members or close friends of the family and many cases (or maybe most, I'm not sure) are never reported.


This is true.

I haven't checked in a while so my memory might be foggy, but from what I can recall, it happened moreso with family members than close friends.

But I could be wrong.

I can only tell by what I've seen happen to my friends.



Ejaculation Storm said:


> You also have no idea what you're talking about. *If you don't understand the law, don't try and talk about the law as if you do.*



*Spoiler*: _Long post of an exhausted reply. Ignore types or I'll...do something._ 




I know the law, stop acting as if this man has done nothing wrong and get your head out of the clouds.

He told people to go out and harm children! Can I tell groups of people (murders) to go to X house and shoot Y? Rape Y? Torture Y? Harm Y emotional? Harm Y physical? Can I write a in depth guide on how to go about to find 'Y' as a person and hurt and harm Y and then get away with it? 
(I hope you got why I used "Y" and "X")

I mean -- if what this lunatic did is so okay with you and the law (which obviously isn't the law as they had reasons to arrest him) -- I can encourage people to break the law of the United States of America and tell them to kill Y (or kill a certain group of anyone, does matter who, let's just say Sheep-men, since this Pedo book targets Children) through a guide and I shouldn't be charged with the crime. If you can throw away the rights and safety of children, does that people can throw away the right of your (sheep-men) life and your safety?

So I can tell immigrants to break the US law and come into America illegally, through a _GUIDE_ on how to break into America? Because as far as I can tell, aiding and abetting illegals is well.....illegal. But you know, in this case, its not illegal. 

Right, I will totally remember your post in this thread and regard it for a moment, and then shake my head. 

You need help if you think this bastard didn't do anything wrong. No, you know what, scratch that.  If you can live with yourself knowing this man has encourage the harm of children, little babies that need our protection, and you think he has done nothing wrong then go right ahead. 

Live that kind of life and I pray you live it happily.





May God bless you.


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 21, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> I know the law, stop acting as if this man has done nothing wrong and get your head out of the clouds.



*I'm not so sure about this one. You lack fact checking skills big time. How do I know this? You cite a supernatural all-powerful entity at the very end of this post.*



Terra Branford said:


> He told people to go out and harm children!


*No he didn't, and even if he did, so what? Again, it's not a valid Imminent Lawless Action situation nor is it an active crime, so while it's not morally right, it's not illegal.*



Terra Branford said:


> Can I tell groups of people (murders) to go to X house and shoot Y? Rape Y? Torture Y? Harm Y emotional? Harm Y physical? Can I write a in depth guide on how to go about to find 'Y' as a person and hurt and harm Y and then get away with it?
> (I hope you got why I used "Y" and "X")


*You can tell a group of murderers to go to a house and shoot somebody and rape somebody else and harm someone emotionally and someone else physically. You can write an in depth guide on how to go about finding a generic person and harm them and then get away with it. That's all legal, and rightfully so. What is not legal is giving names, addresses, and participating in a crime outlined in said book. It is rightfully illegal to shoot somebody, rape somebody else, and severely harm someone emotionally. Those are actual actions and not just words. Unless this book gave specific names, addresses, or specific personal information on potential victims, anything written with word is legal. This book did none of those, so it's in the clear.*



Terra Branford said:


> I mean -- if what this lunatic did is so okay with you and the law (which obviously isn't the law as they had reasons to arrest him)


*Hello, Police-State Logic. Thankfully you're no one and have no say in our judicial system, because if you did, all those damn "unlawful" appeal courts would be burned and by your logic, the jury as well. "Someone can only get arrested if they actually broke a law"....  So much for "innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by jury of peers"*



Terra Branford said:


> -- I can encourage people to break the law of the United States of America and tell them to kill Y (or kill a certain group of anyone, does matter who, let's just say Sheep-men, since this Pedo book targets Children)


*Yes, yes you can. The KKK holds rallies all the time and the Westboro Baptist church has their schedule overbooked. I can walk right up to the White House and encourage people to kill all blacks, whites, women, men, jewish, muslim, or whatever I want to say. It's legal, and that freedom is what makes this country great. People who use hateful speech like that teach us to be tolerant, something you severely lack.*




Terra Branford said:


> through a guide and I shouldn't be charged with the crime. If you can throw away the rights and safety of children, does that people can throw away the right of your (sheep-men) life and your safety?


*Writing a book about committing a crime on a generic person is not the same as actually stripping someone of all their rights and safety you fucking idiot. If Glenn Beck writes a book about how all the jews are stealing his job and how they should die, it does not translate into the actually action of that. This is not 1930's Germany.*



Terra Branford said:


> So I can tell immigrants to break the US law and come into America illegally, through a _GUIDE_ on how to break into America? Because as far as I can tell, aiding and abetting illegals is well.....illegal. But you know, in this case, its not illegal.


*Again, WRITING ABOUT SOMETHING is not equivalent to ACCOMPLISHING THAT SAME THING. If that were true, Rowling would be fighting some nose-less dark wizard.*



Terra Branford said:


> Right, I will totally remember your post in this thread and regard it for a moment, and then shake my head.


*That's what I'm saying.*



Terra Branford said:


> You need help if you think this bastard didn't do anything wrong. No, you know what, scratch that.  If you can live with yourself knowing this man has encourage the harm of children, little babies that need our protection, and you think he has done nothing wrong then go right ahead.



*No. YOU NEED HELP. You need to go to a hospital. You can't separate fiction from reality. You can't separate a set of words from the actions they describe. Children figure out that fantasy stories are just that, A FANTASY. They aren't so stupidly gullible that they can accept that a described action in words is not committing the actual action.

You just can't seem to get it. It's not just me who has said it in this topic. WRITING ABOUT SOMETHING, describing an event in text is not, IS NOT, the same thing as actually DOING something. No wonder you believe in a supernatural being. For you, the text in that book is equal to the action it describes and in your mind, it can't be any other way. You apply that fucked up logic to this topic in the same way.

Speaking of Pedophiles. If you're so dead set on having a crusade against all the evils in this world? What the fuck are you doing supporting a religion? Statistically speaking, involving a group, a child is more likely to be molested by a religious-figure than anyone else on earth.*


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Dec 21, 2010)

> You can tell a group of murderers to go to a house and shoot somebody and rape somebody else and harm someone emotionally and someone else physically. You can write an in depth guide on how to go about finding a generic person and harm them and then get away with it. That's all legal, and rightfully so.



I am not really sure that the above is legal, or rightfully so. Seems like accessory to rape and murder to me, or enticement to rape and murder plus the guide which is a separate action. In any case, if it is proven that people have killed because of what you said or wrote, and what you wrote directly calls for people to rape and kill people, you are going to be in deep shit and expect to be seeing prison cells. Although that is less certain in comparison to your example where you have somebody directly entice a group of murderers to murder and rape.  

Also, not all have your standards of morality and views about what should be legal and what should not be legal. Societies in general are of the opinion that people believing and saying hateful things is not illegal due to freedom of speech but when an obvious threat of direct harm enters the picture, things are more fluid about what is allowed or not.





> Yes, yes you can. The KKK holds rallies all the time and the Westboro Baptist church has their schedule overbooked. I can walk right up to the White House and encourage people to kill all blacks, whites, women, men, jewish, muslim, or whatever I want to say. It's legal, and that freedom is what makes this country great. People who use hateful speech like that teach us to be tolerant, something you severely lack.



I am sure you can be racist and show how hateful you are by saying stuff like "they are inferior" but I require more evidence for your whole "can say and and encourage people to kill all blacks, whites, women, men, jewish, muslim, or whatever one wants to say". Especially that about trying to do it near your White House. 

Also you seem to be misunderstanding protests with hateful Slogans like "You deserve to die" or "Hell awaits you, this is the punishment for what you done" (a typical Westboro Baptist church poster) with actual enticement and encouragement to murder.  Being happy that people are dead, is not exactly the same with what you are saying is happening. 
You might be just a bit off here and misunderstanding - exaggerating the situation.

People encouraging others to kill or rape is an extremely serious issue, not one to be seen lightly at all and not one to be confused with other hateful messages which are significantly different in nature and threat.

Some of the most hateful parts of society, try to walk around this by being as hateful as possible but by not making those direct threats even if they believe that the world would be better if they happened.




As for the stupid shithead that the thread is about, I read only his interview and in it he basically tries to do something similar. He says that he is in favor of children having sex with adults including 60 years old men (which is rape), and that it is better than them having sexual relationships with kids their age, but that he has not done it. He claims that it is always consensual, and they are always lying when they claim that it wasn't, and there are no cases of Pedophiles forcibly raping children.  He could be more direct about it but the meaning is pretty clear.
But if his book is even worse and more direct than his interview was, it would be even worse.

In any case he is walking a line, and I can't say that him getting arrested would displease me at all.  This is a kind of issue that makes one question about the boundaries of Freedom of Speech, but at the end of the day, the good that one individual case would do might be offset by the bad of the law being applied elsewhere, although prudent specif anti-p*d*p**** legislation wouldn't necessarily affect other fields. But it is a risk that it might encourage others who want to pass stupid legislation. In any case, it is the society's responsibility to isolate him, and what he represents.

There are certainly situations that approximate "yelling fire in a theater" that makes one question himself about those issues and even if one believes that even in those cases they should be allowed, one should separate them from other actions which are not so questionable, and have it under consideration how things can change in the case of those situations and to what extend they should be allowed. 

Note, than I don't feel the same should be the case for people who happen to be pedophiles but don't act on it or express pride about it, or say how children should be raped. Although in their cases, I don't see how anyone but themselves would be aware of it. But this shithead has earned my dislike and I can completely understand the sentiment against him, or why one sheriff choose to arrest him. I wouldn't be quickly to conclude that, the sheriff hates freedom of speech and would have acted the same way if the situation was different.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Dec 22, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> I know the law, stop acting as if this man has done nothing wrong and get your head out of the clouds.



No you don't and he hasn't done anything wrong, at least not in writing that book. Until it is proven in court that he has actually molested a kid, writing a book about doing so is not illegal.



Terra Branford said:


> He told people to go out and harm children!



No he didn't. He wrote a book describing how to do the act without harming children and how to mentally prepare them to cope with the act. The book is a how-to, not a go-do.



Terra Branford said:


> Can I tell groups of people (murders) to go to X house and shoot Y? Rape Y? Torture Y? Harm Y emotional? Harm Y physical? Can I write a in depth guide on how to go about to find 'Y' as a person and hurt and harm Y and then get away with it?
> (I hope you got why I used "Y" and "X")



No you can't. The same way this man can't write in his book "Hey readers, go rape kids". Which he didn't do, so he's okay as far as that is concerned. Oh, and leave the logical fallacies out of the debate.



Terra Branford said:


> I mean -- if what this lunatic did is so okay with you and the law (which obviously isn't the law as they had reasons to arrest him) -- I can encourage people to break the law of the United States of America and tell them to kill Y (or kill a certain group of anyone, does matter who, let's just say Sheep-men, since this Pedo book targets Children) through a guide and I shouldn't be charged with the crime. If you can throw away the rights and safety of children, does that people can throw away the right of your (sheep-men) life and your safety?



The man was "arrested" because one state in the entire country has an obscure, 100 year old law that took 5 months of digging to find that was enough to bring him in to custody. The state where that law is in effect is not even the same state the man lives in. Will it be enough to convict him? No, and I explained why earlier. 

Again, you can write a book detailing how to kill someone. You can explain the best places to stab someone, where to shoot someone, the best poisons to use, etc. You can write a whole how-to guide with 101 ways of murdering someone, and that's not against the law. In fact, many of those kinda books exist.

If you wrote a book telling people to kill others, that is a different story. That's the difference between Basil Davenport, author of "13 Ways to Kill a Man" (also sold on Amazon, by the way) and Charles Manson (who explicitly instructed others to kill for him). One is in jail the other is not - because the law explicitly states that you have the freedom to share your thoughts, ideas and opinions without being persecuted for them. Is the man disgusting? Yes. Is he insane? Possibly, if not just a huge troll. But is he a criminal? No. Because he has not broken the law.



Terra Branford said:


> So I can tell immigrants to break the US law and come into America illegally, through a _GUIDE_ on how to break into America? Because as far as I can tell, aiding and abetting illegals is well.....illegal. But you know, in this case, its not illegal.



You can't tell them to break the law. You can write a book describing the best way to cross the border, though. All your examples are really bad.



Terra Branford said:


> Right, I will totally remember your post in this thread and regard it for a moment, and then shake my head.



Shake it all you want, you're the one arguing with logical fallacies and juvenile retorts. You haven't put forth a single logical post this entire thread, all you've done is call the author a lunatic and claim that he should have his freedom of speech stripped from him because he's a p*d*p****. A slippery slope.



Terra Branford said:


> You need help if you think this bastard didn't do anything wrong. No, you know what, scratch that.  If you can live with yourself knowing this man has encourage the harm of children, little babies that need our protection, and you think he has done nothing wrong then go right ahead.



More logical fallacies. Now you're attacking me, because you're running out of illogical nonsense to spew my way. He _didn't_ do anything wrong, just because you don't like the concept of his book doesn't make him a criminal.

Freedom of speech exists for everyone - it's an inalienable right. Just because you don't agree with his message, doesn't mean he should have that right revoked. Regardless how wrong his opinion may be, regardless how disgusting you think it is - once we allow those rights to be stripped from _anyone_, regardless the reason, who is going to stop others from having their rights stripped?

Like I said before - you don't understand the laws and the power behind them. You're just a kid with a "think of the children!" mindset. That's all well and grand, but I'm not going to sit idly by while you call for an end to free speech - it's as much my right as yours, or the author's or anybody else. When fool-ass people like yourself start suggesting that people you don't like don't deserve free speech, well, how long until someone doesn't like my opinion and feels I don't deserve free speech either?



Terra Branford said:


> Live that kind of life and I *pray* you live it happily.



Well that explains your sheer ignorance - you're religious.



Terra Branford said:


> May God bless you.



God doesn't exist.

And to end this on a fun note: You're apparently such a huge advocate for the safety of children, and yet, child molestation and rape is most common amongst religious organizations (i.e. the Catholic church).

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass, champ. I can't neg you enough.


----------



## Terra Branford (Dec 22, 2010)

Ejaculation Storm said:


> *No you don't* and he hasn't done anything wrong, at least not in writing that book. Until it is proven in court that he has actually molested a kid, writing a book about doing so is not illegal.
> 
> No he didn't. *He wrote a book describing how to do the act without harming children and how to mentally prepare them to cope with the act. The book is a how-to, not a go-do.*
> 
> --BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH--


Is that all you have to say to me? "No you don't"? 

He wrote a book on how to harm children, to show Pedos how to do it better so they don't get caught. I can't believe the shite that pours from your mouth. 

Oh God, you're a Child molester/rapist supporter....Oh deary, that's just...ugh. 



> You can't tell them to break the law. You can write a book describing the best way to cross the border, though. All your examples are really bad.


But by telling them the BEST WAY TO CROSS THE BORDER, I am telling them how to break the law.

See where you're wrong?



Ejaculation Storm said:


> God doesn't exist.
> 
> And to end this on a fun note: You're apparently such a huge advocate for the safety of children, and yet, child molestation and rape is most common amongst religious organizations (i.e. the Catholic church).
> 
> Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass, champ. I can't neg you enough.


I'm sure there are Athiests here that think he did something wrong. 



Oh no! Was this where I was supposed to care about what you think? *insert the bawlin' you thought I would do*

You bitchin' about religion ain't nothing new to me.

I was supposed to care what a person who sees a sick bastard who wrote a book on how to rape children, thought about 'me'? The one who finds a child rapist Encourager, as a sick bastard who deserves to rot in jail? Yea....no, not gonna happen.

What? How feck is that a fu*** fun note? You seem to have some really, really big problems you should probably check out.

Oh, and ever heard of *crooked cops* (crooked Christians/Catholics) using their *badge* (Religion) to break the law (rape children and break the law of our Religion)? Think of it that way when you act so silly and claim that most Christians/Catholics are the child rapists. Either way though, you sound like a generalizing ignoramus. 

Bless your soul and may you find Jesus Christ as your savior. Remember, Jesus Christ and God will always love you, no matter what you feel of them. You are his child, you are his kin. He is your father.

Live a happy life, ES.




P.S
You couldn't tell I was a Christian from the Hebrew prayer in my sig?


----------



## Sasori (Dec 22, 2010)

Anyone got DDL for the book?


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 22, 2010)

Sasori said:


> Anyone got DDL for the book?



*Seriously, all this hype over this book makes me truly wonder what's inside of it. Unfortunately, I'll be extradited to the socialist People's Republic of Florida*


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Dec 22, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> I am stupid blah blah blah



Yes that's all I have to say to you, because you're intolerably stupid and not worth anything more.

Also no I didn't notice your sig, was I supposed to be paying that much attention to you? Well, either way - I wasn't.


----------



## Terra Branford (Dec 22, 2010)

Ejaculation Storm said:


> Yes that's all I have to say to you, because you're intolerably stupid and not worth anything more.
> 
> Also no I didn't notice your sig, was I supposed to be paying that much attention to you? Well, either way - I wasn't.



I love you too, my brethren. :33

I'm not going to fight you, ES. If this is how you think so be it, we'll just agree to disagree, how about that? I just wanted to bless you on my final post, but I forgot to say "Merry Christmas", so take that as well 

Goodbye ES! I've some other business to attend at the moment. c:


----------



## Arinna (Dec 22, 2010)

Lol I wonder if anyone actually bought that book XD


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Dec 23, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> I'm not going to fight you, ES.



You weren't acting like that before - when you _were_ trying very hard to argue with me. Suddenly you've lost interest... now that you were made to look a fool.

It's okay, it happens alot around here; we're used to it.


----------



## Alexdhamp (Dec 23, 2010)

arinna2007 said:


> Lol I wonder if anyone actually bought that book XD



If they did, I bet they were flagged by law enforcement.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Dec 23, 2010)

I can see an incident coming out of this where the author goes to court, the case goes up through the appellate division all the way to the U.S Supreme Court.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 23, 2010)

> *You can tell a group of murderers to go to a house and shoot somebody and rape somebody else and harm someone emotionally and someone else physically.* You can write an in depth guide on how to go about finding a generic person and harm them and then get away with it. That's all legal, and rightfully so. What is not legal is giving names, addresses, and participating in a crime outlined in said book. It is rightfully illegal to shoot somebody, rape somebody else, and severely harm someone emotionally. Those are actual actions and not just words. Unless this book gave specific names, addresses, or specific personal information on potential victims, anything written with word is legal. This book did none of those, so it's in the clear.


No you couldn't do those things. It's seen as inciting violence which is illegal in some countries. Don't tell someone they have no understanding of the law only to follow it up with a bunch of lies.


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 23, 2010)

Gunners said:


> No you couldn't do those things. It's seen as inciting violence which is illegal in some countries. Don't tell someone they have no understanding of the law only to follow it up with a bunch of lies.



*If I wrote a note to gang of murders, which is just written word, and said that they should go kill someone. That's not illegal. Listing names, listing addresses, giving details on exactly who a victim should be, that's being an accessory or an accomplice.

Your argument would make sense if I were truly inciting them to kill someone. Like starting a riot or something, that's illegal under the Imminent Action Clause. But we are just talking about words that don't describe any specific person, place, or time, just like this book. But then again, I'm only talking about America, since that is where this man lived.*


----------



## Horu (Dec 23, 2010)

Toroxus said:


> *No. YOU NEED HELP. You need to go to a hospital. You can't separate fiction from reality.*





Ejaculation Storm said:


> More logical fallacies. Now you're attacking me, because you're running out of illogical nonsense to spew my way.


She believes children are "pure innocent souls", just leave her alone.


Terra Branford said:


> You couldn't tell I was a Christian from the Hebrew prayer in my sig?


Now this is rich.

Truthfully, the reason I couldn't tell you were a Christian was because you showed absolutely no understanding of the Biblical view of the inherent condition of humanity - they are BORN SINFUL. Not innocent beings who gradually work up a sin record, but sinful beings who can only hope to increase in righteousness at they mature. It all starts with total depravity - there are no innocent souls. It's not that people have committed unrighteous acts before being born again, it's that they haven't committed a single righteous one. I'd expect people who didn't know that to fall for the "pure innocent children" shtick, but somebody familiar with the Bible? Honestly, have you read the Old Testament and seen how many babies and children below 18 (or your preferred age of accountability) God's exterminated, either directly or in mass genocides? There's no justification for that if they're "pure innocent souls", and you should be screaming about God's terrible evil ways with the Dawkins crowd if you hold to that notion.

So that would be my reason.

That, and I have sigs disabled.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Dec 23, 2010)

Thread closed due to stupid all around.  Please refrain from name calling even if the other person's position is fundamentally reprehensible, offensive, or downright icky.


----------

