35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Even I won't play devil's advocate about this guy's right to free speech.
The self-published author was arrested in Pueblo, Colorado, on a Florida felony warrant after undercover detectives in Polk County purchased and received a copy of the book through the mail. He will have to be extradited to Florida to face charges.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html
23400
Post by: Ma55ter_fett
The time investment I would have to put into formulating a half way decent defensive argument for this man (for trolling purposes) would not generate a sufficient amount of luls to make it worth the effort.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
Children! Don't worry! Here, hide in my van!
15076
Post by: fire4effekt
I read the book and i didn't learn anything i didn't already know.
Just because hes a sh*t writer doenst mean he should be arrested though.
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
What exactly is the blue thing supposed to be on the cover?
33369
Post by: Wolfun
I'm surprised he didn't get arrested like a month ago, when it was being reported by all the newspapers.
I've not read it myself, but aren't you allowed to publish what you want as long as it's not "GO FORTH AND RAPE CHILDREN."?
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ma55ter_fett wrote:The time investment I would have to put into formulating a half way decent defensive argument for this man (for trolling purposes) would not generate a sufficient amount of luls to make it worth the effort.
My thoughts exactly.
He'll probably get snapped up by those trolls at the ACLU. They'll do anything to piss of the establishment.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
Wolfun wrote:
I've not read it myself, but aren't you allowed to publish what you want as long as it's not "GO FORTH AND RAPE CHILDREN."?
That's what he wrote.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Wolfun wrote:I'm surprised he didn't get arrested like a month ago, when it was being reported by all the newspapers.
I've not read it myself, but aren't you allowed to publish what you want as long as it's not "GO FORTH AND RAPE CHILDREN."?
It is a guide book on how to seduce, sexually gratify, and train for long term sexual service YOUNG BOYS IE 9-11 years of age.
241
Post by: Ahtman
It is possible to write a book that isn't legal, but not being an expert in the field, and haven't read the book in particular, i couldn't say whether or not it falls under the guidelines. We'll find out in court.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
No excuse for buggering little boys. Sorry, not gonna bend or break on that one.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Peter Wiggin wrote:No excuse for buggering little boys. Sorry, not gonna bend or break on that one.
I don't think anyone was arguing for that. We are talking about limits of free speech and all that junk though.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ahtman wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:No excuse for buggering little boys. Sorry, not gonna bend or break on that one.
I don't think anyone was arguing for that. We are talking about limits of free speech and all that junk though.
The free speech ends when you advocate child molestation.
Not only is it just gross, but unless I am wrong it is against the law to incite unlawful behavior. <shrug> I am not a lawyer though.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
Anything to incite imminent crime is not protected by free speech.
I.E. If I threatened to take Peter's head and cut it off slowly with a rusty spoon (WHICH I WOULD NEVER DO), that would not be protected.
30024
Post by: A Black Ram
Lets also make a book on how to make bombs, and hide them from your parents!
33369
Post by: Wolfun
Peter Wiggin wrote:Wolfun wrote:I'm surprised he didn't get arrested like a month ago, when it was being reported by all the newspapers.
I've not read it myself, but aren't you allowed to publish what you want as long as it's not "GO FORTH AND RAPE CHILDREN."?
It is a guide book on how to seduce, sexually gratify, and train for long term sexual service YOUNG BOYS IE 9-11 years of age.
Ah. I was unaware of this.
As I said, I've not read it myself. =P
All I got from the papers were " IT'S SICK AND EVIL!". Which is what they said about 4chan, soooo....
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Wolfun wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Wolfun wrote:I'm surprised he didn't get arrested like a month ago, when it was being reported by all the newspapers.
I've not read it myself, but aren't you allowed to publish what you want as long as it's not "GO FORTH AND RAPE CHILDREN."?
It is a guide book on how to seduce, sexually gratify, and train for long term sexual service YOUNG BOYS IE 9-11 years of age.
Ah. I was unaware of this.
As I said, I've not read it myself. =P
All I got from the papers were " IT'S SICK AND EVIL!". Which is what they said about 4chan, soooo....
Well...
Isn't it?
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Black Ram wrote:Lets also make a book on how to make bombs, and hide them from your parents!
They did, then they made it illegal. See "Jolly Roger's Cookbook" and "Anarchists Handbook". I remember when you could buy them at chain bookstores. Now you can't, cause they are illegal.
Actually, they may not be illegal per-say...but certainly difficult to find. Same deal with The Turner Diaries, although that book certainly doesn't directly incite any criminal behavior. Still......I hope that makes more sense to you than it does to me.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Peter Wiggin wrote:
It is a guide book on how to seduce, sexually gratify, and train for long term sexual service YOUNG BOYS IE 9-11 years of age.
I thought that was the boyscout handbook?
I'm confused...
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
CT GAMER wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:
It is a guide book on how to seduce, sexually gratify, and train for long term sexual service YOUNG BOYS IE 9-11 years of age.
I thought that was the boyscout handbook?
I'm confused...
Nah, I was a scout! Then the LDS hijacked the scouts and turned it into yet another anti-homosexuality weapon in their arsenal.
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
So I take it nobody knows what the blue thing is?
Is it supposed to be a person?
Can someone enlighten me?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Peter Wiggin wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Black Ram wrote:The Turner Diaries, although that book certainly doesn't directly incite any criminal behavior.
It doesn't explicitly state that people should overthrow the government and kill all non-whites, it just implicitly does it, and in such a fashion to have been the imputes for several real life crimes.
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:So I take it nobody knows what the blue thing is?
Is it supposed to be a person?
Can someone enlighten me?
I don't know either and I'm not sure I want to know.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
The blue crap is an artistic rendering of a bearded man embracing a young looking boyish figure. Its very.....greek. :/
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I thought all Greeks looked like this.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Modern greeks are more like this though
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
That looks like a leg over a shoulder...
That artists rendition is a swing and a miss. I can't even tell what it is trying to convey ( I can assume you are right due to the subject matter...)
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:That looks like a leg over a shoulder...
That artists rendition is a swing and a miss. I can't even tell what it is trying to convey ( I can assume you are right due to the subject matter...)
SUmthin gross having to do with a grown man buggering a little boy. Ugh, c'mon. If ugay then ugay, wait til 18 ffs.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
I blame the sexy children... this guy is clearly a victim of society.
THIS THREAD IS SO FAMILY FRIENDLY IT HURTS!
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
I wonder if instructing somehow in HOW to do something is the same thing as advocating it. Would I be arrested for publishing a pamphlet on the correct procedure of burglary?
Still, I'm not sure if this book is some sort of joke. I hope it is. That would be much better than taking any of this seriously.
@Medium: You funny guy, pedo's get you last. 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Peter Wiggin wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Black Ram wrote:Lets also make a book on how to make bombs, and hide them from your parents!
They did, then they made it illegal. See "Jolly Roger's Cookbook" and "Anarchists Handbook". I remember when you could buy them at chain bookstores. Now you can't, cause they are illegal.
Actually, they may not be illegal per-say...but certainly difficult to find. Same deal with The Turner Diaries, although that book certainly doesn't directly incite any criminal behavior. Still......I hope that makes more sense to you than it does to me.
There is a subtle but important distinction between a book having been banned by the government, and a book being difficult to find because Amazon won't stock it.
I have no idea what the content of this alleged paedophile book may be. It probably can be defended on free speech grounds. It is very difficult to find legitimate grounds to ban a book, however as Ahtman said it needs to go through the trial process.
Presumably the author has been arrested for being a paedophile rather than an author of a distasteful book.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably the author has been arrested for being a paedophile rather than an author of a distasteful book.
"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.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Now it is illegal to write a novel about a bitter divorce battle involving the couple's children.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Kilkrazy wrote:Now it is illegal to write a novel about a bitter divorce battle involving the couple's children.
And the kid sidekick in any book/movie now HAS to survive. Becuase violence only happens to adults.
5470
Post by: sebster
What's weird is that he's being charged in Florida, despite never having been to Florida, or publishing his book there.
11892
Post by: Shadowbrand
Where can I get this book? And how much?
I want ten.
5470
Post by: sebster
Shadowbrand wrote:Where can I get this book? And how much?
I want ten.
I've always kind of wanted to have a really horrific book case on prominent display. Mein Kampf next to Protocols of the Elders of Zion next to the Paedophiles Guide and so on.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peter Wiggin wrote:
"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.
Wow, better go ahead and find all the people involved in the production of The Professional, Lolita, Lord of the Flies, American Beauty, Interview with a Vampire, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
I've always kind of wanted to have a really horrific book case on prominent display. Mein Kampf next to Protocols of the Elders of Zion next to the Paedophiles Guide and so on.
Having read all of those, Protocols is the most distasteful.
The book (Pedophiles Guide) is basically a plea against rape. It absolutely violates our normal standards of the age of consent, but it doesn't really advocate pedophilia so much as accept that there are pedophiles, and that they might act better than they do.
I consider that much better than Protocols, which attributes malice, instead of rebuking it.
Edit: For clarity.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
sebster wrote:What's weird is that he's being charged in Florida, despite never having been to Florida, or publishing his book there.
Its clearly a "letter of the law" thing due to the fact that he's a pedophile. Sorry, but I fully endorse discrimination against pedophiles. Call it an arbitrary moral judgment.
5534
Post by: dogma
He's a pedophile?
I don't know much about this man, I only know that he published a book aimed at pedophiles.
I suppose that might be considered to be pedophilia, but I don't.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It's not actually illegal to be a paedophile, it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent.
Some paedophiles break the law in that respect, and so do some non-paedophiles.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
I thought the book, distasteful a topic as it is, was a guide for paedophiles *not* to offend and thus stay on the right side of the law. Much as some people would like all paedophiles to be locked up or lobotomised the fact is that people get locked up for illegal actions, not for having certain thoughts.
The book was picked up by the media as a "how to guide" for paedophiles to abuse children, my understanding from other reporting is that isn't the point of the book but that didn't prevent a moral panic. If I'm wrong about this then I'll be happily corrected, but the book is not a guide for paedophiles to abuse children and get away with it, it's a guide on how not offend.
Now if that was accurate then I think a book supporting paedophiles to prevent them offending isn't actually such a bad idea in itself, though I can't see who would buy such a thing over the counter. Ideally paedophiles should seek medical help and not keep it a secret IMO.
I find it highly contradictory that a book telling paedophiles not to offend and break the law is a massively bad thing, but the many books on Amazon telling parents how to 'straighten out' their gay children are ok. So telling someone not to do something illegal is bad, but telling parents how to 'correct' their children growing up with normal legal feelings isn't worth commenting upon. Hmmm....
15594
Post by: Albatross
sebster wrote:Shadowbrand wrote:Where can I get this book? And how much?
I want ten.
I've always kind of wanted to have a really horrific book case on prominent display. Mein Kampf next to Protocols of the Elders of Zion next to the Paedophiles Guide and so on.
I've got 'Mein Kampf'. It's dull.
There are depressingly few car-chases.
5534
Post by: dogma
Howard A Treesong wrote:I thought the book, distasteful a topic as it is, was a guide for paedophiles *not* to offend and thus stay on the right side of the law. Much as some people would like all paedophiles to be locked up or lobotomised the fact is that people get locked up for illegal actions, not for having certain thoughts.
Having read it, yes, that's the case.
221
Post by: Frazzled
He needs a bullet to the head, on national TV.
Better yet, lets tie it in to the American foot ball thread. Put him on the 50 yard line in a game between the Steelers and the Raiders. He's the ball. Every body part in the end zone counts as a touchdown.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Consider my ticketS BOUGHT!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Peter Wiggin wrote:Ahtman wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:No excuse for buggering little boys. Sorry, not gonna bend or break on that one.
I don't think anyone was arguing for that. We are talking about limits of free speech and all that junk though.
The free speech ends when you advocate child molestation.
Exactly. Its not judst advocacy. Its a how to manual. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:What's weird is that he's being charged in Florida, despite never having been to Florida, or publishing his book there.
He sent the book to a detective in Florida. In the words of the immortal bard: BAM!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Kilkrazy wrote:It's not actually illegal to be a paedophile, it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent.
Some paedophiles break the law in that respect, and so do some non-paedophiles.
Also illegal to have kiddie porn, and the reason that this book skirts legality is because it is a how to guide on the actions of child molestation (a crime). Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote:I thought the book, distasteful a topic as it is, was a guide for paedophiles *not* to offend and thus stay on the right side of the law. Much as some people would like all paedophiles to be locked up or lobotomised the fact is that people get locked up for illegal actions, not for having certain thoughts.
Having read it, yes, that's the case.
I've only read exerpts, but the premise of "I want to seduce children" and "NEVER HURT THE KIDS" are NOT compatible. Putting it inside a little kid is harmful no matter how you slice it. I practice "harm no one". Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:He needs a bullet to the head, on national TV.
Better yet, lets tie it in to the American foot ball thread. Put him on the 50 yard line in a game between the Steelers and the Raiders. He's the ball. Every body part in the end zone counts as a touchdown.
The Nation would take care of him so's they'd never find the body.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
I find myself somewhat conflicted here, on one hand I strongly advocate free speech,even in the cases of speech others find extremely offensive or objectionable.
On the other hand,I honestly believe that anyone who would willfully harm a child should be crucified in the actual sense of the word.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
FITZZ wrote:On the other hand,I honestly believe that anyone who would willfully harm a child should be crucified in the actual sense of the word.
Slow clap.
We don't crucify enough people anymore.
As a side note, I find myself constantly saying "Don't ya like CLOWNS? Ain't we fething funny?
9079
Post by: FITZZ
Monster Rain wrote:FITZZ wrote:On the other hand,I honestly believe that anyone who would willfully harm a child should be crucified in the actual sense of the word.
Slow clap.
We don't crucify enough people anymore.
As a side note, I find myself constantly saying "Don't ya like CLOWNS? Ain't we fething funny?
 I see the good Captain has left an impression. 
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
dogma wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:
"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.
Wow, better go ahead and find all the people involved in the production of The Professional, Lolita, Lord of the Flies, American Beauty, Interview with a Vampire, etc.
As well as Alan Moore, for depicting Batgirl being crippled by the Joker, and also whoever was responsible for the death of Tim Drake.
Of course, this was in a comic series, and depicted fictional characters. Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
All the discussion about the cover of the book being hard to understand made me think of a possible alternative.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
He's giving us the V's! That jerk!
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. Its not judst advocacy. Its a how to manual.
Have you read it? Because it doesn't advocate pedophilia at all. Its basically a book about how to cope with one's destructive urges.
The title is provocative by intention, as the author wanted to attract attention to what he basically views as a disability.
Peter Wiggin wrote:
I've only read exerpts, but the premise of "I want to seduce children" and "NEVER HURT THE KIDS" are NOT compatible. Putting it inside a little kid is harmful no matter how you slice it. I practice "harm no one".
Sure they are. Wanting to do something does not entail believing that a thing should be done, or actually doing the thing in question.
One can want to do violence against someone, and still recognize that doing so would be wrong or bad. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."
Not when it comes to mere depiction.
5470
Post by: sebster
dogma wrote:Having read all of those, Protocols is the most distasteful.
The book (Pedophiles Guide) is basically a plea against rape. It absolutely violates our normal standards of the age of consent, but it doesn't really advocate pedophilia so much as accept that there are pedophiles, and that they might act better than they do.
I consider that much better than Protocols, which attributes malice, instead of rebuking it.
Edit: For clarity.
I haven't read Protocols (although I did see it for sale in a bookstore in Brunei, but that's a whole other story) but I did read Mein Kampf, which is mostly just boring and incoherent. And doesn't have enough car chases.
I didn't know you'd read the Paedophile's Guide, or the actual content of the book. Thanks for the insight. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peter Wiggin wrote:Its clearly a "letter of the law" thing due to the fact that he's a pedophile. Sorry, but I fully endorse discrimination against pedophiles. Call it an arbitrary moral judgment.
Arbitrary moral judgements and the law are an extremely bad combination. Indeed, the reason we embrace the the law is to protect us from the arbitrary moral judgements of others. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:He sent the book to a detective in Florida. In the words of the immortal bard: BAM!
Well, yeah, which is why all I said was that it was interesting, not that it was not a legal thing.
And when I say interesting, I mean it is interesting to consider exactly what would and wouldn't be illegal in other circumstances. What if the book was given to a warehouse for distribution, and they distributed it to a guy in Florida on his behalf, who's breaking the law then?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Kilkrazy wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post: A Black Ram wrote:Lets also make a book on how to make bombs, and hide them from your parents!
They did, then they made it illegal. See "Jolly Roger's Cookbook" and "Anarchists Handbook". I remember when you could buy them at chain bookstores. Now you can't, cause they are illegal. Actually, they may not be illegal per-say...but certainly difficult to find. Same deal with The Turner Diaries, although that book certainly doesn't directly incite any criminal behavior. Still......I hope that makes more sense to you than it does to me.
There is a subtle but important distinction between a book having been banned by the government, and a book being difficult to find because Amazon won't stock it. I have no idea what the content of this alleged paedophile book may be. It probably can be defended on free speech grounds. It is very difficult to find legitimate grounds to ban a book, however as Ahtman said it needs to go through the trial process. Presumably the author has been arrested for being a paedophile rather than an author of a distasteful book.
Would be nice if the charges were in the OPs post.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:All the discussion about the cover of the book being hard to understand made me think of a possible alternative.
BWUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
irl spew chow mein laughing
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:dogma wrote:Having read all of those, Protocols is the most distasteful.
The book (Pedophiles Guide) is basically a plea against rape. It absolutely violates our normal standards of the age of consent, but it doesn't really advocate pedophilia so much as accept that there are pedophiles, and that they might act better than they do.
I consider that much better than Protocols, which attributes malice, instead of rebuking it.
Edit: For clarity.
I haven't read Protocols (although I did see it for sale in a bookstore in Brunei, but that's a whole other story) but I did read Mein Kampf, which is mostly just boring and incoherent. And doesn't have enough car chases.
I didn't know you'd read the Paedophile's Guide, or the actual content of the book. Thanks for the insight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote:Its clearly a "letter of the law" thing due to the fact that he's a pedophile. Sorry, but I fully endorse discrimination against pedophiles. Call it an arbitrary moral judgment.
Arbitrary moral judgements and the law are an extremely bad combination. Indeed, the reason we embrace the the law is to protect us from the arbitrary moral judgements of others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:He sent the book to a detective in Florida. In the words of the immortal bard: BAM!
Well, yeah, which is why all I said was that it was interesting, not that it was not a legal thing.
And when I say interesting, I mean it is interesting to consider exactly what would and wouldn't be illegal in other circumstances. What if the book was given to a warehouse for distribution, and they distributed it to a guy in Florida on his behalf, who's breaking the law then?
He was clearly the target of a police operation based on the fact that HE WROTE A HOW TO BOOK ON MOLESTING KIDS!!!!! I think that the legal foundation is pretty secure. Florida is in the belt of states that will and do prosecute obscenity laws. Too bad, so sad.
Your free speech ends when it harms another citizen. Poli Sci 101 noobfarts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. Its not judst advocacy. Its a how to manual.
Have you read it? Because it doesn't advocate pedophilia at all. Its basically a book about how to cope with one's destructive urges.
The title is provocative by intention, as the author wanted to attract attention to what he basically views as a disability.
Peter Wiggin wrote:
I've only read exerpts, but the premise of "I want to seduce children" and "NEVER HURT THE KIDS" are NOT compatible. Putting it inside a little kid is harmful no matter how you slice it. I practice "harm no one".
Sure they are. Wanting to do something does not entail believing that a thing should be done, or actually doing the thing in question.
One can want to do violence against someone, and still recognize that doing so would be wrong or bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."
Not when it comes to mere depiction.
So you argue from the stance that this is protected under free speech? Fine, send it to the courts!
Bolded your own comments. Statutory rape is rape. Thats a crime. It advocates breakign the legal age of consent, there by it advocates rape. Go ahead and point out the logical fallacy if you want.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peter Wiggin wrote:He was clearly the target of a police operation based on the fact that HE WROTE A HOW TO BOOK ON MOLESTING KIDS!!!!! I think that the legal foundation is pretty secure. Florida is in the belt of states that will and do prosecute obscenity laws. Too bad, so sad.
What the hell are you doing? Why are you pretending that I'm in any way defending this guy, his book or his right to publish his book. I was commenting that the law matters more than your (self admitted) arbitrary moral judgements.
But you seem to have formed the debate approach of 'paedophiles are bad, everything else is detail, now to start a flame war'.
Your free speech ends when it harms another citizen. Poli Sci 101 noobfarts.
Well, fething duh. Seriously, just, fething duh. What you've posted is incredibly obvious, incredibly simplistic, and you did it in a pointlessly rude way. Why are you trying to sink your own thread?
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
sebster wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:He was clearly the target of a police operation based on the fact that HE WROTE A HOW TO BOOK ON MOLESTING KIDS!!!!! I think that the legal foundation is pretty secure. Florida is in the belt of states that will and do prosecute obscenity laws. Too bad, so sad.
What the hell are you doing? Why are you pretending that I'm in any way defending this guy, his book or his right to publish his book. I was commenting that the law matters more than your (self admitted) arbitrary moral judgements.
But you seem to have formed the debate approach of 'paedophiles are bad, everything else is detail, now to start a flame war'.
Your free speech ends when it harms another citizen. Poli Sci 101 noobfarts.
Well, fething duh. Seriously, just, fething duh. What you've posted is incredibly obvious, incredibly simplistic, and you did it in a pointlessly rude way. Why are you trying to sink your own thread?
No, I just formulated the stance that this guy is a sick puppy that broke the law. Now he gets to go through the process.
Sorry if I was rude, honestly didn't intend for it to be. Went back and edited it 3 times to try and make it NOT rude. Apparently I fail at internet. Edit: Actually 5 times
I do think that this is a seperate issue from free speech, thats all I'm saying. Fair enough?
5534
Post by: dogma
Peter Wiggin wrote:
He was clearly the target of a police operation based on the fact that HE WROTE A HOW TO BOOK ON MOLESTING KIDS!!!!!
No, he wrote a how-to book about living your life as a pedophile. There are pedophiles that do not molest children, just as there are gay men that do not have sex with men, and heterosexual men that do not have sex with women.
Peter Wiggin wrote:
So you argue from the stance that this is protected under free speech? Fine, send it to the courts!
Not really, I'm arguing that what everyone here thinks is in the book is not actually in the book, because I've read the book; unlike, I'm guessing, every other commentator here.
I'm also tacitly arguing that the book is protected by Free Speech, but not because I'm arguing that people should be able to advocate pedophilia.
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Bolded your own comments. Statutory rape is rape. Thats a crime. It advocates breakign the legal age of consent, there by it advocates rape. Go ahead and point out the logical fallacy if you want.
No, no it doesn't, and that's what the comments that you placed in bold are about. I realize that, for many people, this is a difficult issue to look at dispassionately but the book that's being discussed here really has nothing at all to do with statutory rape or its advocacy. In fact, it explicitly demonizes statutory rape, and then goes on to give advice about how to cope with the desire to commit it.
The legal age of consent has no bearing on being attracted to someone who is not of majority. If it did, the movie Mean Girls would have sent millions of American men to jail.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
dogma wrote:
The legal age of consent has no bearing on being attracted to someone who is not of majority. If it did, the movie Mean Girls would have sent millions of American men to jail.
Correct, but its up to the court system to determine if the content of this book falls into the realm of inciting criminal behavior. Your comment about [the author] making the title purposefully controversial....well......
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
The title isn't 'Go out and rape children!' it's selling itself as a how-to-guide for pedophiles. For what, it doesn't say, but no matter. Without having read the book, I can't pass judgement on it. Point is, unless its advocating violation of the law, the author has broken no law. Is he distasteful? Yes. Do I think he's right to have written it? No. However, under the law in the United States, I can go around screaming I'm a Nazi and all Jews are evil, and I'm allowed to do that. What I'm not allowed to do is say we need to kill Jews, or advocate such an illegal act. THAT is where protection under the 1st Ammendment ends.
And yes, we can't look at this as just a moral issue. We have to look at it from a legal one. Just cause someone does something you find weird, strange, or even flat out disgusting does not mean its illegal. (If we could get people for makng disgusting things, why don't we first kill the guy who made the Human Centipede before going after this author, hmm?)
5534
Post by: dogma
Peter Wiggin wrote:Your comment about [the author] making the title purposefully controversial....well......
No, not at all.
The title was made controversial in order to attract attention to what the author views as a disability, as I said before.
It was not made controversial in order to endorse pedophilia.
I'm going to echo Sebster, what are you doing? Because it certainly isn't reading the thread.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
dogma wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Your comment about [the author] making the title purposefully controversial....well......
No, not at all.
The title was made controversial in order to attract attention to what the author views as a disability, as I said before.
It was not made controversial in order to endorse pedophilia.
I'm going to echo Sebster, what are you doing? Because it certainly isn't reading the thread.
I read it, I just don't agree with you guys seeming to defend this guy's right to free speech when it involves buggering little kids. Period.
I don't think its a civil right to have sex with kids or collect kiddie porn. This book's existence by itself is an attempt to justify those things.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peter Wiggin wrote:
I read it, I just don't agree with you guys seeming to defend this guy's right to free speech when it involves buggering little kids. Period.
Wait, so even speech about sleeping with children is not permitted? Even when that speech is directed against sleeping with children? Does that mean that you, having started this thread and brought all our attentions to the topic of pedophilia have acted to advocate pedophilia? Should we suppress your speech since the topic of it involves buggering little kids?
Peter Wiggin wrote:
I don't think its a civil right to have sex with kids or collect kiddie porn. This book's existence by itself is an attempt to justify those things.
Ah, I we have a new Frazzled.
No, its not an attempt to justify those things. Its literally an attempt to convince pedophiles not to do the things you're discussing.
At this point it isn't a matter of free speech, its a matter of what is in the book in question.
Well, that, or its a matter of you attempting to troll your own thread by willfully "arguing" in a way which has nothing at all to do with the conversation.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peter Wiggin wrote:No, I just formulated the stance that this guy is a sick puppy that broke the law. Now he gets to go through the process.
Okay, but have you formulated that opinion based on the actual content of the book?
Sorry if I was rude, honestly didn't intend for it to be. Went back and edited it 3 times to try and make it NOT rude.
Is cool, don't worry about it. Probably just a difference in the tone we're used to.
I do think that this is a seperate issue from free speech, thats all I'm saying. Fair enough?
Well, we're talking about someone being arrested for the act of writing a book, so free speech is pretty clearly part of the issue. There are points where free speech is trumped by other issues, which in this case would involve giving advice to another party on how to commit a crime. At which point the issue becomes one of the actual content of the book, and given the only person in this thread who's actually read the book is saying there's no instruction on how to commit a crime...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:dogma wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:
"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.
Wow, better go ahead and find all the people involved in the production of The Professional, Lolita, Lord of the Flies, American Beauty, Interview with a Vampire, etc.
As well as Alan Moore, for depicting Batgirl being crippled by the Joker, and also whoever was responsible for the death of Tim Drake.
Of course, this was in a comic series, and depicted fictional characters. Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."
Not in the UK. We have a law against the depiction of imaginary characters who are apparently under 18, in sexual situations.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Kilkrazy wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:dogma wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:
"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.
Wow, better go ahead and find all the people involved in the production of The Professional, Lolita, Lord of the Flies, American Beauty, Interview with a Vampire, etc.
As well as Alan Moore, for depicting Batgirl being crippled by the Joker, and also whoever was responsible for the death of Tim Drake.
Of course, this was in a comic series, and depicted fictional characters. Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."
Not in the UK. We have a law against the depiction of imaginary characters who are apparently under 18, in sexual situations.
Those poor Japanese immigrants suffering under your lolicon laws.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Woah, Peter Wiggin, how does that sebter/dogma logic tag-team feel?
Kilkrazy wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:dogma wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:
"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.
Wow, better go ahead and find all the people involved in the production of The Professional, Lolita, Lord of the Flies, American Beauty, Interview with a Vampire, etc.
As well as Alan Moore, for depicting Batgirl being crippled by the Joker, and also whoever was responsible for the death of Tim Drake.
Of course, this was in a comic series, and depicted fictional characters. Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."
Not in the UK. We have a law against the depiction of imaginary characters who are apparently under 18, in sexual situations.
This was a relatively new law, right? I think there was some discussion on it last year.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Kilkrazy wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:dogma wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:
"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.
Wow, better go ahead and find all the people involved in the production of The Professional, Lolita, Lord of the Flies, American Beauty, Interview with a Vampire, etc.
As well as Alan Moore, for depicting Batgirl being crippled by the Joker, and also whoever was responsible for the death of Tim Drake.
Of course, this was in a comic series, and depicted fictional characters. Arguably a guide to paedophilia is in a bit of a different league in terms of "harm to children."
Not in the UK. We have a law against the depiction of imaginary characters who are apparently under 18, in sexual situations.
That's very well and good, but I doubt you could call a crowbar beating a "sexual situation."
Oh, wait, I suppose some of the stuff Joker does in trying to cripple Batgirl counts. Not sure if she was 18 there, though.
Huh.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I found it interesting Dogma has read the book.
5534
Post by: dogma
I find it interesting that you haven't.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Frazzled wrote:I found it interesting Dogma has read the book.
Oh no he didn't!
Yes, Frazzled went there!
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
dogma wrote:I find it interesting that you haven't.
Really, why's that? It's not like Frazzled actually reads anything else he comments on.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Emperors Faithful wrote:dogma wrote:I find it interesting that you haven't.
Really, why's that? It's not like Frazzled actually reads anything else he comments on.
Oh contraire! Why just now I am reading this epic tale about twins, torn by love and war, climbing their way to the top to get some water. I hope it ends well.
5534
Post by: dogma
I find it interesting that Fraz cannot conquer his own distaste in order to confront an issue that might affect his children.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Frazzled wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:dogma wrote:I find it interesting that you haven't.
Really, why's that? It's not like Frazzled actually reads anything else he comments on.
Oh contraire! Why just now I am reading this epic tale about twins, torn by love and war, climbing their way to the top to get some water. I hope it ends well.
DOES THE PUPPY LIVE?!?!
wait...you're watching Firefly again aren't you? Automatically Appended Next Post: oh wait, they weren't twins...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Did someone say puppy?
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Frazzled wrote:Did someone say puppy?
I HAVE STARED INTO THE INFINITE VOID AND SAW ONLY DEATH....
5742
Post by: generalgrog
dogma wrote:I find it interesting that Fraz cannot conquer his own distaste in order to confront an issue that might affect his children.
I have to say that I agree with dogma on this one. I was thinking that it would be a good idea to read this thing to find out how these people think so as to protect my kids from them thar sickos.
GG
221
Post by: Frazzled
generalgrog wrote:dogma wrote:I find it interesting that Fraz cannot conquer his own distaste in order to confront an issue that might affect his children.
I have to say that I agree with dogma on this one. I was thinking that it would be a good idea to read this thing to find out how these people think so as to protect my kids from them thar sickos.
GG
Thanks got that covered already, but I like the slam from the guy who's reading pedo manuals in his spare time.
She Who Must Be Obeyed worked in victim services, specializing in child victims. You want to hear things that will wake you up at night in a cold sweat? She can tell you.
2760
Post by: Tigerone
Why even post something about a book like this in the first place? The subject is very offensive to alot of people and has no place on a web site about toy army men. Just another example of why dakka is turning into.......  ......
33004
Post by: Elmodiddly
The same way in which people can post threads with diorama's about rape and how we can openly discuss other things such as this. It's a free world.
Some would argue that without free speech we cannot be forewarned and therefore armed to defend against things we find deplorable and offensive.
If you think that Dakka is turning into crap or whatever the bleep word is meant to represent I take it your post count will not be going over 40? Just a thought.
How many forums have people loged onto to find it either lawless and a bitch fest all bloomin' day long or the other way where a Mod rules with an iron hand and a finger constantly poised above the "Ban His Ass" button?
Dakka is different for which I am grateful.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:generalgrog wrote:dogma wrote:I find it interesting that Fraz cannot conquer his own distaste in order to confront an issue that might affect his children.
I have to say that I agree with dogma on this one. I was thinking that it would be a good idea to read this thing to find out how these people think so as to protect my kids from them thar sickos.
GG
Thanks got that covered already, but I like the slam from the guy who's reading pedo manuals in his spare time.
She Who Must Be Obeyed worked in victim services, specializing in child victims. You want to hear things that will wake you up at night in a cold sweat? She can tell you.
It isn't a 'pedo manual', as you call it, if anything, it is an anti-pedo manual as the whole point of it is to keep those people from doing anything. You can argue whether or not pedophilia is a chronic disorder or just someone with a screw loose becuase that is a debatable subject. Continually making up things that are factually wrong becuase it feels better emotionally is intellectually dishonest and also very disingenuous. The implication that there is something wrong with someone becuase they are more informed than you is also insulting. I've read Mien Kampf, that doesn't make me a Nazi any more than Dogma reading this book makes him a pedophile. You can't understand a thing by ignoring or pretending it doesn't exist, that just perpetuates the problem.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Frazzled wrote:generalgrog wrote:dogma wrote:I find it interesting that Fraz cannot conquer his own distaste in order to confront an issue that might affect his children.
I have to say that I agree with dogma on this one. I was thinking that it would be a good idea to read this thing to find out how these people think so as to protect my kids from them thar sickos.
GG
Thanks got that covered already, but I like the slam from the guy who's reading pedo manuals in his spare time.
She Who Must Be Obeyed worked in victim services, specializing in child victims. You want to hear things that will wake you up at night in a cold sweat? She can tell you.
I agree with Dogma, Ahtman and GeneralGrog (who ever thought they'd see that sentence?).
And I took child abuse reports for the State of NH after hours for the better part of three years. I could swap stories with SWMBO; not that either of us would want to.
2760
Post by: Tigerone
Its a disgusting topic as well as the sick person that painted the rape scene. Dakka is full of children which in turn draws people that prey upon them. Just putting such a book out there in this type of forum is uncalled for and I have noticed over the last year or so alot of threads about alot of questionable activities with underage drinking and drug use makes me wonder why topics like that need to be addressed on a wargamming forum. If someone started a topic about a book about how to hate gays or any other minority group it would get locked within a few minutes.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:Frazzled wrote:generalgrog wrote:dogma wrote:I find it interesting that Fraz cannot conquer his own distaste in order to confront an issue that might affect his children.
I have to say that I agree with dogma on this one. I was thinking that it would be a good idea to read this thing to find out how these people think so as to protect my kids from them thar sickos.
GG
Thanks got that covered already, but I like the slam from the guy who's reading pedo manuals in his spare time.
She Who Must Be Obeyed worked in victim services, specializing in child victims. You want to hear things that will wake you up at night in a cold sweat? She can tell you.
It isn't a 'pedo manual', as you call it, if anything, it is an anti-pedo manual as the whole point of it is to keep those people from doing anything. You can argue whether or not pedophilia is a chronic disorder or just someone with a screw loose becuase that is a debatable subject. Continually making up things that are factually wrong becuase it feels better emotionally is intellectually dishonest and also very disingenuous. The implication that there is something wrong with someone becuase they are more informed than you is also insulting. I've read Mien Kampf, that doesn't make me a Nazi any more than Dogma reading this book makes him a pedophile. You can't understand a thing by ignoring or pretending it doesn't exist, that just perpetuates the problem.
1. Again you're assuming I'm not informed.
2. If it were abook dealing with How to not be a pedo then I doubt he'd be saying hello to Spike.
From the article:
Amazon pulled the book from its site in early November.
"He actually provided a how-to guide to commit sexual battery against children," according to Judd, who said he was shocked and mortified by specific examples and illustrations using 9- and 13-year-old boys.
Its a pedo manual. My point stands. Defending it is utter bs. He needs to die. People that do that need to die. People that support their right to do that need to die.
3. i don't read Al Qaeda torture manuals either, and don't need to know they are sick s who need killing.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Emperors Faithful wrote:Woah, Peter Wiggin, how does that sebter/dogma logic tag-team feel?
I'm not skeert of em. I can efite as good as the next guy, I just don't use excessive verbosity to do it. 
I'm just suprised that Dogma is seemingly defending the right to free speech on this subject. Can't help but feel its a bit of devil's advocacy.
2760
Post by: Tigerone
For the first time EVER Frazzed is 100% right!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Frazzled wrote:I found it interesting Dogma has read the book.
I find it interesting as well. Not trying to say anything other than that, I just honestly find it interesting that he'd read it.
Now the real question is whether or not it was purchased by Mr Dogma. I wouldn't mind glancing at a PDF just to educate myself a bit more, but I wouldn't give the sicko author 1 dime of royalty payment. Of course he IS self published though.
Here's a quick guide to living as a pedophile.
Rule #1: Don't have sex with little kids.
FINISHED
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tigerone wrote:For the first time EVER Frazzed is 100% right!
Well even a broken clock is right twice a day.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I suppose it makes me an ignorant pleb, but I really don't think I could bring myself to read that book. The whole thing just seems creepy to me.
That said, my loathing for pedophiles is without measure. Pretty much anything that inconveniences them is okay by me, be it Constitutional or not.
abderian
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled wrote:generalgrog wrote:dogma wrote:I find it interesting that Fraz cannot conquer his own distaste in order to confront an issue that might affect his children.
I have to say that I agree with dogma on this one. I was thinking that it would be a good idea to read this thing to find out how these people think so as to protect my kids from them thar sickos.
GG
Thanks got that covered already, but I like the slam from the guy who's reading pedo manuals in his spare time.
She Who Must Be Obeyed worked in victim services, specializing in child victims. You want to hear things that will wake you up at night in a cold sweat? She can tell you.
I agree with Dogma, Ahtman and GeneralGrog (who ever thought they'd see that sentence?).
And I took child abuse reports for the State of NH after hours for the better part of three years. I could swap stories with SWMBO; not that either of us would want to.
As someone who has done extensive work in the non-profit sector, I've dealt with way too many folks that were molested or raped as children to have even the slightest bit of sympathy or open mindedness at a man who purposefully stirs the pot on a volatile subject.
Arguing that having a "how to manual" for pedophiles is somehow GOOD for children is idiocy in the highest degree. Refer back to rule #1 for living as a pedophile.
TLDR, I think donkey show's are kinda hot but I'd never pay to support them CAUSE ITS WRONG!!!!! Automatically Appended Next Post: Tigerone wrote:Its a disgusting topic as well as the sick person that painted the rape scene. Dakka is full of children which in turn draws people that prey upon them. Just putting such a book out there in this type of forum is uncalled for and I have noticed over the last year or so alot of threads about alot of questionable activities with underage drinking and drug use makes me wonder why topics like that need to be addressed on a wargamming forum. If someone started a topic about a book about how to hate gays or any other minority group it would get locked within a few minutes.
Hi there, you missing the point of thread. kk?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Monster Rain wrote:I suppose it makes me an ignorant pleb, but I really don't think I could bring myself to read that book. The whole thing just seems creepy to me.
That said, my loathing for pedophiles is without measure.
Me too, to be honest. I actually only found out about the book a few weeks ago, and at the time I berated some poor girl in their customer service dept over chat for a half hour or so, telling her they should pull it or be complicit to child abuse.
That being said, I am ashamed to admit that I did so having not learned that the book is (apparently) not actually an instruction manual, and tells pedos not to actually have sex with kids. If those things are true, then the book probably does fall within the rights of free speech, and I leapt to a conclusion based on false evidence (like the comments on Amazon from other kneejerk-ouitraged folks who also hadn't read it themselves).
2760
Post by: Tigerone
I dont think you get it...Even by posting something like this you are spreading it to someone that may use that book to hurt someone...its wrong...I do not belive in putting your head in the sand and ingnoring all the bad in the world but, this is a place that has alot of children some of them prob has lived thru something like this.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Here's a quick guide to living as a pedophile.
Rule #1: Don't have sex with little kids.
FINISHED
there you go.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Tigerone wrote:I dont think you get it...Even by posting something like this you are spreading it to someone that may use that book to hurt someone...its wrong...I do not belive in putting your head in the sand and ingnoring all the bad in the world but, this is a place that has alot of children some of them prob has lived thru something like this.
I get it.
The only person in the thread who has actually read the book says the content is not what you, or the Sheriff in FL, claims it is.
The person who has read the book says it actually tells pedophiles NOT to have sex with kids, and gives advice on how to cope with their urge to do so.
I am quite glad, at the moment, for this thread, because it has disabused me of an erroneous notion. I always like to learn the truth when I am laboring under a lie.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Tigerone wrote: someone that may use that book to hurt someone...its wrong..
Have you read what the book is about or what people have said in the thread? If we also avoided every discussion based on the possibility of every possible permutation of human suffering we wouldn't have much to talk about at all, especially wargames and wargaming. We have veterans here you know. Speaking about pedophilia is not anywhere close to encouraging or sanctioning. If you read the thread it has been universally scorned, and rightfully so. The subject is more about freedom of speech, the difference between facts and emotion and how they play on the political field, and Fraz implying people are pedophiles.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Bail set at $15,000.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/22/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html
Prosecutors are alleging its a how to manual.
(CNN) -- A Florida judge set bail at $15,000 Wednesday for a man who wrote a controversial book considered a "how-to" guide for pedophiles.
Phillip Greaves, who was arrested in Colorado on Monday, said the book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct," can be used as a guide to rehabilitating pedophiles. And, instead of teaching them how to avoid arrest, it teaches them to avoid illegal actions, he said.
Greaves has been charged with the distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct, Florida authorities said. He made his first appearance in a Florida courtroom Wednesday afternoon.
His court appearance came a day after he held court in front of reporters explaining the nature of his book. Asked if he is a pedophile, Greaves said, "I only have sex with grown-ups."
He said he has no children and "I don't keep children around my house."
Pedophile guide: Obscene or free speech?
'Pedophile guide' author arrested
Author defended 'how-to' pedophilia book
RELATED TOPICS
Pedophilia
Florida
Child Abuse
Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd has said his detectives were able to establish jurisdiction in the case by conducting an undercover operation, buying the book through the mail.
Greaves protested Tuesday saying he is the target of entrapment, but Judd disagreed.
"He wrote this book, he published this book, he put it on Amazon to sell," Judd told reporters as Greaves was being booked into the Polk County Jail, "and he freely responded to our desire to purchase it."
Greaves and his book gained national attention earlier this year after Amazon.com defended selling the book on its website despite angry comments and threats of boycotts from thousands of people. The book was removed from the website in early November.
Officials said the book talks about safe sex and avoiding injury to children, grooming and preparing children for sex and teaching children how to lie to their parents.
Judd said Greaves' book outlines a "code of ethics" that shows pedophiles how to look for the most vulnerable children.
Greaves told reporters Tuesday he wrote the book to exorcise his own childhood. He said he was introduced to sex at the age of 7 by a 10-year-old friend and began having sex with other children. This continued, he said, until he was about 15, when he stopped and did not have sex again for years.
"Once I got into adolescence, I suppose you could have identified me as an adolescent pedophile," he said. But now, he said, he is an example of the fact that people can reform.
"I think all speech should be protected," Greaves said. But "I was not the one who solicited the material to be sent to Florida. I think Florida law is for Floridians and Colorado law is for Coloradoans."
He told reporters he will not be able to make bond: "I'm actually quite poor."
Judge John Kirkland said Wednesday in court that if Greaves does not post bail he must remain in Florida, cannot have contact with anyone younger than 18 and cannot have access to a computer.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN's "AC360" Monday night that prosecutors may have a hard time convicting Greaves, and maintained his arrest was unconstitutional.
"I don't think they can go forward because the book is clearly protected by the First Amendment," Toobin said. "This book, as awful as it is, it is only words."
Judd vehemently disagreed with Toobin's assessment of the case and the two sparred on the program.
"This has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with obscenity," Judd said. "We had a law in Florida that applied. We only needed jurisdiction."
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Mannahnin wrote:I am quite glad, at the moment, for this thread, because it has disabused me of an erroneous notion. I always like to learn the truth when I am laboring under a lie.
I've found it pretty informative as well.
I'm also left with a lingering question as to what list dogma went on when he ordered this book for his research.
EDIT--
Frazzled's news story kind of changes the perceived tone of the book for me though.  That doesn't seem as innocuous as dogma made it out to be.
astereognosis
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Tigerone wrote:I dont think you get it...Even by posting something like this you are spreading it to someone that may use that book to hurt someone...its wrong...I do not belive in putting your head in the sand and ingnoring all the bad in the world but, this is a place that has alot of children some of them prob has lived thru something like this.
Conversely, by raising awareness of things like this I am helping to give children and parents yet another tool to avoid predators.
I can do this all day.
241
Post by: Ahtman
The problem is fraz that if the Sheriff is as myopic as you on the subject it could say in big bold letters on every page "DON"T DO IT" and they are going to read that as an endorsement. They don't like this guy and they are out to get him and it wouldn't be the first time the state has obfuscated the truth to achieve it's ends, especially for such an emotionally charged subject.
They might, for instance ask for a copy of the book than arrest him for sending them a copy of the book. I also not it says "officials said" instead of being able to point to anything specific. I don't trust these officials at the moment becuase I think they are emotionally compromised. If I were to read the book and it turns out that Dogma's representation of the content is wrong I will gladly change my opinion, but as of now I can go by "officials" or someone I trust to be more honest about the content.
You didn't highlight this parts it seems:
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN's "AC360" Monday night that prosecutors may have a hard time convicting Greaves, and maintained his arrest was unconstitutional.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ahtman wrote: Fraz implying people are pedophiles.
I have to admit that I laughed at this. Frazz is the king of certain types of fallacy.
Officials said the book talks about safe sex and avoiding injury to children, grooming and preparing children for sex and teaching children how to lie to their parents.
Judd said Greaves' book outlines a "code of ethics" that shows pedophiles how to look for the most vulnerable children.
Important point, not to mention the one that the entire sordid mess hinges on. I mean if it were just a vulgar novel that would be one thing. A how to guide is another beast entirely.
2760
Post by: Tigerone
Frazzled wrote:Bail set at $15,000.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/22/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html
Prosecutors are alleging its a how to manual.
(CNN) -- A Florida judge set bail at $15,000 Wednesday for a man who wrote a controversial book considered a "how-to" guide for pedophiles.
Phillip Greaves, who was arrested in Colorado on Monday, said the book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct," can be used as a guide to rehabilitating pedophiles. And, instead of teaching them how to avoid arrest, it teaches them to avoid illegal actions, he said.
Greaves has been charged with the distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct, Florida authorities said. He made his first appearance in a Florida courtroom Wednesday afternoon.
His court appearance came a day after he held court in front of reporters explaining the nature of his book. Asked if he is a pedophile, Greaves said, "I only have sex with grown-ups."
He said he has no children and "I don't keep children around my house."
Pedophile guide: Obscene or free speech?
'Pedophile guide' author arrested
Author defended 'how-to' pedophilia book
RELATED TOPICS
Pedophilia
Florida
Child Abuse
Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd has said his detectives were able to establish jurisdiction in the case by conducting an undercover operation, buying the book through the mail.
Greaves protested Tuesday saying he is the target of entrapment, but Judd disagreed.
"He wrote this book, he published this book, he put it on Amazon to sell," Judd told reporters as Greaves was being booked into the Polk County Jail, "and he freely responded to our desire to purchase it."
Greaves and his book gained national attention earlier this year after Amazon.com defended selling the book on its website despite angry comments and threats of boycotts from thousands of people. The book was removed from the website in early November.
Officials said the book talks about safe sex and avoiding injury to children, grooming and preparing children for sex and teaching children how to lie to their parents.
Judd said Greaves' book outlines a "code of ethics" that shows pedophiles how to look for the most vulnerable children.
Greaves told reporters Tuesday he wrote the book to exorcise his own childhood. He said he was introduced to sex at the age of 7 by a 10-year-old friend and began having sex with other children. This continued, he said, until he was about 15, when he stopped and did not have sex again for years.
"Once I got into adolescence, I suppose you could have identified me as an adolescent pedophile," he said. But now, he said, he is an example of the fact that people can reform.
"I think all speech should be protected," Greaves said. But "I was not the one who solicited the material to be sent to Florida. I think Florida law is for Floridians and Colorado law is for Coloradoans."
He told reporters he will not be able to make bond: "I'm actually quite poor."
Judge John Kirkland said Wednesday in court that if Greaves does not post bail he must remain in Florida, cannot have contact with anyone younger than 18 and cannot have access to a computer.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN's "AC360" Monday night that prosecutors may have a hard time convicting Greaves, and maintained his arrest was unconstitutional.
"I don't think they can go forward because the book is clearly protected by the First Amendment," Toobin said. "This book, as awful as it is, it is only words."
Judd vehemently disagreed with Toobin's assessment of the case and the two sparred on the program.
"This has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with obscenity," Judd said. "We had a law in Florida that applied. We only needed jurisdiction."
So the book may or may not be what you think it is....
4042
Post by: Da Boss
That's what we've really gotta be scared of- the paedophile tigers.
2760
Post by: Tigerone
Calling me a paedophile...?
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Also, the guy says that he wrote this book as a way to exorcise his own childhood molestation. Thats pretty telling right there.
Shoulda wrote a friggin autobiography, not a pedobear how to guide. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tigerone wrote:Calling me a paedophile...?
Only if you like little kids.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Well, by posting that, you're talking about it. According to Fraz and the Sheriff in FL, you may well be.
2760
Post by: Tigerone
If you encounter child pornography either online or through the U.S. mail, here is how you can report the crime to the proper authorities. If you encounter child pornography on the Internet, you can report the site address to your Internet Service Provider and your local or state FBI or Customs office listed in your telephone directory.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Oh, gak, tiger one, I didn't actually click that your username had tiger in it, hahaha. No, I am not calling you a paedo, I wouldn't do that.
I was actually responding to peter's post about protection from predators and you posted in between.
Heh heh.
I think ye are over-reacting though. Someone can have unhealthy thoughts without acting on them. If this dude has written the book to help paedophiles deal with their urges, then I consider that actually courageous, and applaud him. I am disgusted at the implications made at Dogma in this thread though, leave it out lads.
Drunken Da Boss AWAY!
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Thanks for clearing that up!
221
Post by: Frazzled
I have to admit that I laughed at this. Frazz is the king of certain types of fallacy.
Is incoherent a fallacy? Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:The only person in the thread who has actually read the book says the content is not what you, or the Sheriff in FL, claims it is.
And I don't believe him, at all.
I believe prosecutors and police more than Dogma.
2760
Post by: Tigerone
Thats it in a nutshell .....It all boils down to what this book is about and I believe the prosecutors.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Wow, actually calling Dogma out as a liar. Ballsy. I doubt he'll overeact, but I do think that is pretty rude.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Sadly, unless you want to actually go ahead and read the book you are going to have to accept the courts impression of it.
If that is the conclusion that the Judge has come to, it can't have been taken lightly. I doubt he would be making it up, although he could be interpreting it wrong.
However, ambiguous material on such a controversial subject is probably not for the best.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:Wow, actually calling Dogma out as a liar. Ballsy. I doubt he'll overeact, but I do think that is pretty rude.
He's directly saying the prosecutor and police are wrong. Either they are lying or he is. They can be slammed by lawyers, judges, and the electorate. he's responsibile to no one. We don't even know who Dogma is, any more than we know who I am. I could be Hugo Chavez for all you know (and I do have some cool crimson red Chavez shirts).
In the words of my first professor in law school: Believe nothing. Trust no one.
Now lets all slam Frazzled for daring to question the Shuma/Dogma/Sebster triiumvirate. but here's a question. I've admitted to being wrong in the past. Has Dogma?
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Monster Rain wrote:I suppose it makes me an ignorant pleb, but I really don't think I could bring myself to read that book. The whole thing just seems creepy to me.
Certainly so, the whole topic is horrible. But the issue I have is that there are numerous people on this thread who as screaming for this guy to be hanged or shot for writing a "how to" guide. But the more detailed reports and the person on this thread who has actually *read* the book say it's more of a "how not to" guide... to help people with paedophile tendencies find a way not to offend.
Now is that a good thing? Or would people prefer that paedophiles simply have no advice available, because that will obviously solve more problems.
People see a book with the word "paedophile" in the title and assume that it has to be the work of Satan himself and a totally evil publication designed to help paedophiles abuse children... the book couldn't possibly be of any other content other than a manual directly promoting child rape. Could it?
I guess people like Frazzled and others would quite like to identify paedophiles at birth and shoot them through the head. Well that's not going to happen and we don't lock up paedophiles until they actually commit a crime and abuse a child or start handling illegal material. In many cases paedophiles themselves are the victims of abuse continuing a cycle of abuse. So for all those people who are attracted to children but are yet to offend they sit in a grey limbo. They have desires that are repellent the to vast majority of society and urges which are criminal if acted upon and yet there's little advice to help them stay within the law.
Child abuse ruins childhoods and whole lives. However gratifying it must be to lock up offenders for a lifetime or give them a lethal injection surely it would be better to prevent the abuse occurring in the first place. And if a fething book can play a role in stopping sick people acting upon their feelings then perhaps it needs to be looked at a bit more constructively.
Or you know, we could just go back to relying on knee-jerk reactions to anything written in the media and screaming at any book that has any advice at all for paedophiles and demanding that the author is shot on national TV. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Da Boss wrote:Wow, actually calling Dogma out as a liar. Ballsy. I doubt he'll overeact, but I do think that is pretty rude.
He's directly saying the prosecutor and police are wrong. Either they are lying or he is. They can be slammed by lawyers, judges, and the electorate. he's responsibile to no one. We don't even know who Dogma is, any more than we know who I am. I could be Hugo Chavez for all you know (and I do have some cool crimson red Chavez shirts).
You do know that people are innocent until proven otherwise? Of the few threads I've read in the Off Topic section it's something you seem to forget quite often.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Howard A Treesong wrote:And if a fething book can play a role in stopping sick people acting upon their feelings then perhaps it needs to be looked at a bit more constructively.
What part of this are you not getting? The prosecutors and police are saying its a how to manual, not some memoir on how bad things occurred and you shouldn't do that. Your defense of this Beast is misplaced. Automatically Appended Next Post: You do know that people are innocent until proven otherwise? Of the few threads I've read in the Off Topic section it's something you seem to forget quite often.
***In the eyes of the court as a legal standard-yep. In reality they are usually guilty.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Frazzled wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote:And if a fething book can play a role in stopping sick people acting upon their feelings then perhaps it needs to be looked at a bit more constructively.
What part of this are you not getting? The prosecutors and police are saying its a how to manual, not some memoir on how bad things occurred and you shouldn't do that. Your defense of this Beast is misplaced.
And the police and prosecutors are not *right* until proven so in a court of law. I know you think that everyone charged is automatically guilty like with any terrorism plot thread we seem to have or Julian Assange and Wikileaks but that isn't how the law works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:***In the eyes of the court as a legal standard-yep. In reality they are usually guilty.
"If he wasn't guilty m'lud he wouldn't be here"
HOWARD FEELS THAT IS A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT AND HE WAS SO UPSET BY IT HE FELT THE NEED TO FLAME SOMEONE. -Edited by Mannahnin.
We're all for strenuous debate here, folks, but please avoid the personal attacks. Bear in mind that people often take what they post here less seriously than they do their real life behavior, and it is best to give people the benefit of the doubt. -The Mgmt.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Pathetic. The idea of someone like you sitting on a jury is frightening.
For some reason the thought that you find that frightening pleases me greatly. 
33004
Post by: Elmodiddly
Frazz, as a Mod I am concerned that you've dived right in with this. You're supposd to break up fights not get into one!
The thing is there has been no extracts from the book quoted on here. There has been no specifics. This book has been discussed with a ridiculous amount of conjecture.
For all we know the book could well be a manual to Paedophiles to help them to overcome their desires. We all know how the law can be interpreted and manipulated and the CNN discussion highlighted the fact that the arrest was unconstitutional and would fail in court.
We wait and see but seeing as no-one has any proof other than Dogma as to what the book contains I am quite surprised that Dakites have YET AGAIN, got into another damned fight over nothing.
What is going on in this forum at the moment?
32205
Post by: Warboss Imbad Ironskull
A Black Ram wrote:Lets also make a book on how to make bombs, and hide them from your parents!
Picked up my copy of that last week actually....oh wait.
This is just wrong, what I don't get is what company would actually agree to produce the books.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dogma started it. If I am not oing to mod other posters who attack me as policy I will attack them back as a poster.
But you're right I'll back out of the discussion at this point.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Moderators are allowed to get into disagreements. We normally attempt to separate acting as a poster from acting as a Mod where possible.
33004
Post by: Elmodiddly
Fairy nuff. I am just concerned over the ease at which people are flying off the handle with gueswork, no proof, and a lot of bitterness.
I think a group hug is in order.
34680
Post by: yeenoghu
GWAR makes all sorts of statements on stage about Odurus Urungus (their singer) wanting to have sex with his alien hybrid half-son love child. Snatch has a graphic and helpful lecture on how to properly dispose of a corpse in a short amount of time. Law and Order has numerous episodes of how people can get away with murder, the Anarchist's Cookbook has molotov cocktail for dummies recipies, and the Bible gets into detail about the punishments permitted according to god's law for disagreeable women. So what, this guy writes about his wierd nasty loathsome creepy ass interest too. While we're at it, can we arrest all the Catholic pedophile priests for the content of the bible, or any social-studies middle school teacher who mentions what Alexander the Great was fond of doing? Can we arrest the biographers of that czarina Katherine the Great who liked to feth her horse? (allegedly)... how about the director of Platoon for a detailed demonstration of how to correctly subjugate a villiage of confused unarmed vietnamese peasants.
I don't want to read this guy's gak, but if I want to put a 'how to kidnap a world leader in 3 easy steps' book I hardly expect I will be arrested for that either. People will think (just like GWAR's alien half son love baby) that it is a joke. So how do we objectively judge a sense of humor? I can tell dead baby jokes too, that doesn't mean I'm actually out stuffing them in trash cans (well... not often anyway). Say what you want. Write what you want. Publish it if you can find a gak that will buy it, DOING it is arrestable.
Time to go write my essay on how to seduce nuns at Notre Game football games...
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Frazzled wrote:
I have to admit that I laughed at this. Frazz is the king of certain types of fallacy.
Is incoherent a fallacy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:The only person in the thread who has actually read the book says the content is not what you, or the Sheriff in FL, claims it is.
And I don't believe him, at all.
I believe prosecutors and police more than Dogma.
Nope!!!!!!
Appeals to blatant emotion or side swipes designed to discredit your debate opponent's crediblity generally fall under those lines. Iz ok Frazzfrazz, weiner dogs don't molest kids.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I didn't see Dogma's comment about Fraz as a slam. More an attempt to point out that there are other reasons for reading a book like this, which might make it worth Fraz's time.
Calling another poster a liar directly is pretty serious.
I have certainly known police and prosecutors to make mistakes and err on the side of guilt; they have that luxury, to some extent, because the defense has the role of assuming innocence and protecting the defendant.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
yeenoghu wrote:GWAR makes all sorts of statements on stage about Odurus Urungus (their singer) wanting to have sex with his alien hybrid half-son love child. Snatch has a graphic and helpful lecture on how to properly dispose of a corpse in a short amount of time. Law and Order has numerous episodes of how people can get away with murder, the Anarchist's Cookbook has molotov cocktail for dummies recipies, and the Bible gets into detail about the punishments permitted according to god's law for disagreeable women. So what, this guy writes about his wierd nasty loathsome creepy ass interest too. While we're at it, can we arrest all the Catholic pedophile priests for the content of the bible, or any social-studies middle school teacher who mentions what Alexander the Great was fond of doing? Can we arrest the biographers of that czarina Katherine the Great who liked to feth her horse? (allegedly)... how about the director of Platoon for a detailed demonstration of how to correctly subjugate a villiage of confused unarmed vietnamese peasants.
I don't want to read this guy's gak, but if I want to put a 'how to kidnap a world leader in 3 easy steps' book I hardly expect I will be arrested for that either. People will think (just like GWAR's alien half son love baby) that it is a joke. So how do we objectively judge a sense of humor? I can tell dead baby jokes too, that doesn't mean I'm actually out stuffing them in trash cans (well... not often anyway). Say what you want. Write what you want. Publish it if you can find a gak that will buy it, DOING it is arrestable.
Time to go write my essay on how to seduce nuns at Notre Game football games...
Comparing Oderus Urungus to a dude that wrote a book on living as a pedophile is silly. Firstly, Oderus is CLEARLY better since he has a space ship that runs on crack. PLUS he could just tell Gor Gor the dino to EAT THIS GUY! Problem solved, plus GWAR wins again.
Also, a historical account of a world leader (including their sexual proclivities) is a far cry from a how to guide. Please see my previous statement about this guy writing an autobiography as a way to 'exorcise" his own tragic childhood.
P.S. dance puppets dance!
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
yeenoghu wrote:GWAR makes all sorts of statements on stage about Odurus Urungus (their singer) wanting to have sex with his alien hybrid half-son love child. Snatch has a graphic and helpful lecture on how to properly dispose of a corpse in a short amount of time. Law and Order has numerous episodes of how people can get away with murder, the Anarchist's Cookbook has molotov cocktail for dummies recipies, and the Bible gets into detail about the punishments permitted according to god's law for disagreeable women. So what, this guy writes about his wierd nasty loathsome creepy ass interest too. While we're at it, can we arrest all the Catholic pedophile priests for the content of the bible, or any social-studies middle school teacher who mentions what Alexander the Great was fond of doing? Can we arrest the biographers of that czarina Katherine the Great who liked to feth her horse? (allegedly)... how about the director of Platoon for a detailed demonstration of how to correctly subjugate a villiage of confused unarmed vietnamese peasants.
I don't want to read this guy's gak, but if I want to put a 'how to kidnap a world leader in 3 easy steps' book I hardly expect I will be arrested for that either. People will think (just like GWAR's alien half son love baby) that it is a joke. So how do we objectively judge a sense of humor? I can tell dead baby jokes too, that doesn't mean I'm actually out stuffing them in trash cans (well... not often anyway). Say what you want. Write what you want. Publish it if you can find a gak that will buy it, DOING it is arrestable.
Time to go write my essay on how to seduce nuns at Notre Game football games...
First time I read this, I thought you were talking about our GWAR.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Howard A Treesong wrote:HOWARD FEELS THAT IS A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT AND HE WAS SO UPSET BY IT HE FELT THE NEED TO FLAME SOMEONE. -Edited by Mannahnin.
We're all for strenuous debate here, folks, but please avoid the personal attacks. Bear in mind that people often take what they post here less seriously than they do their real life behavior, and it is best to give people the benefit of the doubt. -The Mgmt.
I'm genuinely surprised what I said counted as a "personal attack" by any stretch. All I said was that, given Frazzled's views on 'justice', I was left frightened at the thought of him sitting on a jury. No bad language nothing particularly offensive or rude. If being left frightened by the thought of a person holding the belief that just about anyone going to court is guilty on the basis that they wouldn't have been charged in the first place, well...
Most forums I'm on have rules against promoting violence against others, but even as a Mod Frazzled has repeated suggested we shoot this guy or kill him in some other nasty way so why that is acceptable while me saying that "The idea of someone like you sitting on a jury is frightening." is wrong I don't know. That and Frazzled basically calling another poster a liar. And *I* get moderated??
221
Post by: Frazzled
Hey I didn't edit it!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Don't take Frazz seriously if you can help it Howard.
Besides, here's a personal attack. Frazz likes to troll with weiner dogs, Dogma loves to argue, Sebester is OCD at responding with qoutes, and I'm halfway cracked.
P.S. Folks that play with little army men need to get laid. Think I covered all the bases there. Oh, and vote Prime in 2012.
 Automatically Appended Next Post: Howard A Treesong wrote:
Most forums I'm on have rules against promoting violence against others, but even as a Mod Frazzled has repeated suggested we shoot this guy or kill him in some other nasty way
We're a grimdark forum. I say put him in a cage match with Marneus Calgar.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Howard, the way you expressed the concept reached the level of personal attack in my judgment, even though I agree with your perspective more than Frazzled's. I understand it's a heated subject, so I just went with the text edit rather than a formal warning. Cool?
We have suspended and banned posters for promoting violence against people, but such comments when made about a person who is believed to have committed a heinous crime (like child rape, mass murder, or genocide) are usually allowed, and seen as normal venting of steam, not as genuine incitement.
Bear in mind also that what a person posts here is not always directly or honestly representative of their real personal views or actions. Sometimes they adopt a Devil's Advocate perspective. Sometimes they exaggerate or amplify their real views in an attempt at humor, or just to blow off steam. Sometimes it's a combination of factors.
If anyone, including a Moderator, posts something objectionable, please hit Alert Moderator on the post, and someone will come look at it. Generally a Mod who's not personally involved in the thread.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Peter Wiggin wrote:Don't take Frazz seriously if you can help it Howard.
Besides, here's a personal attack. Frazz likes to troll with weiner dogs, Dogma loves to argue, Sebester is OCD at responding with qoutes, and I'm halfway cracked.
P.S. Folks that play with little army men need to get laid. Think I covered all the bases there. Oh, and vote Prime in 2012.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Most forums I'm on have rules against promoting violence against others, but even as a Mod Frazzled has repeated suggested we shoot this guy or kill him in some other nasty way
We're a grimdark forum. I say put him in a cage match with Marneus Calgar.
Prime's a pussy. Vote Palpatine in 2012. He'll make the trains run on time!
And on that note. Its time for me to take a little posting sabbatical. So long and thanks for all the fish!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Sweet, did Frazz just banhammer himself?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
One beer later I'm back. Is this a good idea? Maybe not.
Frazz: You know what you said about being suspicious of dogma reading the book could be taken to be VERY insulting, right? I realise as well, and will state, that Dogma should probably avoid bringing up your kids if he wants to reduce friction between you guys.
BUT
I see a conflict between your stance here and your general anti-authoritarian stance of hatin' da man. I find it more easy to believe that this dude in Florida hates paedophiles and sees this as a chance to lock one up and get some positive publicity to up his profile and maybe help his career. "Knowing" Dogma for the last few years, I've found him to generally be pretty careful about what he posts, if at times pretty pedantic and relentless about certain stuff. I find it really hard to believe that he would lie about this for no gain. I would extend this thinking to most OT regulars- I think most of ye are decent guys and if you said you'd read or seen something, I'd believe you.
Maybe I'm just too nice! Have a beer and chill out, eh? It's a bit tense in here.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Here is a little tidbit....sometimes police get things wrong.
GG
16387
Post by: Manchu
Just wondering if there is an actual subject underlying this thread or if I should lock it.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Its a pedo manual. My point stands. Defending it is utter bs. He needs to die. People that do that need to die. People that support their right to do that need to die.
No, it isn't. You can choose to not believe what I'm saying, but until you've actually read the book you have no ground to stand argumentatively.
Frazzled wrote:
3. i don't read Al Qaeda torture manuals either, and don't need to know they are sick s who need killing.
How do you know Book X is an Al Qaeda torture manual if you've never read it?
I mean, I can start calling the Bible a book of Satanic quotes, but that doesn't make it true.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Well, ostensibly I intended for it to be a thread to discuss this whole sordid business....but people are getting nasty and unkind over it.
I think that banning religious ads on public transit is dumb....if you pay for the ad space, you get to advertise. Lock away IMO, folks are getting to venomous.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
On the contrary. Folks have largely kept it polite, and Fraz has just chosen to step out of the thread, in a considered and adult decision related to the material and the discussion thereof.
I see no reason why the discussion can't continue or drop off of its own merits and interest or lack therof.
Manchu, I agree with Grog that the bus ads are a totally different subject and should get their own thread.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:Dogma started it. If I am not oing to mod other posters who attack me as policy I will attack them back as a poster.
Really? Because the first post in our exchange was your insinuation that the fact that I had read the book might be for nefarious reasons.
In any case, I didn't insult you. I merely used a colorful example in order to call your attention to a reason for reading the book in question that isn't related to being a pedophile.
I mean, as you said, your wife is a youth victim councilor. She, for lack of a better word, studies pedophilia (because you can't console people about what you don't know). Does that mean that she is a pedophile, or is it merely that she has a moral, or profit, incentive that compels her to study those that are? Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:
And I don't believe him, at all.
I believe prosecutors and police more than Dogma.
Why?
They both have a profit motive as regards a conviction in this case, precisely because people like you exist.
I, on the other hand, have no motive for profit. In fact, the only motive I have is not admitting that I've read the book in question, because people like you exist.
16387
Post by: Manchu
OT- moved to other thread
22783
Post by: Soladrin
dogma wrote:I mean, I can start calling the Bible a book of Satanic quotes, but that doesn't make it true.
Actually...
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
He's directly saying the prosecutor and police are wrong. Either they are lying or he is. They can be slammed by lawyers, judges, and the electorate. he's responsibile to no one. We don't even know who Dogma is, any more than we know who I am. I could be Hugo Chavez for all you know (and I do have some cool crimson red Chavez shirts).
Interestingly, being responsible to no one (which is itself false, as the information age has made us all responsible to everyone) has the advantage of not being subject to the emotional prejudice of others. I can read the book dispassionately, and thereby comment on it, due to the very fact that no one is going to deprive me of my livelihood (well, no one will look to do so anyway) based on that fact. Prosecutors and judges, on the other hand, have to contend with people like you. People that read a headline and assume that they know everything about the topic due to a strong emotional reaction.
Frazzled wrote:
In the words of my first professor in law school: Believe nothing. Trust no one.
Your argument implicitly involves trusting the police. Trusting no one would involve being indifferent to the affair, given a lack of first-order information.
Frazzled wrote:
I've admitted to being wrong in the past. Has Dogma?
Yes, I've just never done it when in conversation with you, because you aren't very good at argument, and tend to be wrong about everything.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Manchu wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Manchu, I agree with Grog that the bus ads are a totally different subject and should get their own thread.
Maybe so, but it's worth bringing up here, as well. To me the issue is about whether you should be able to say or otherwise publish statements even if they elicit demands for censorship. Many people are extremely uncomfortable with open discourse about pedophilia in anything other than a pejorative sense (but see dogma's example above regarding psychology). Similarly, open religious debate in public settings has a way of making people uncomfortable. At issue is not merely the state's response to these situations but also how privately owned businesses or, to put a fine point on it in the context of this thread, individuals are treating them.
That is a good point, but to me the crux of this is the debatable stance that the man has provided advocacy for, and encouragement of something that is inherently damaging to society. I cannot think of ONE positive societal effect of sex at the age of 9-13. Even 14 is pushing it, but then I'd lump myself into my own argument. 
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Dogma, there's no need to belabor the points when he's voluntarily absented himself from the thread.
You're also more than capable of making your comments about his statements and his positions, rather than his personal qualities
Manchu wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Manchu, I agree with Grog that the bus ads are a totally different subject and should get their own thread.
Maybe so, but it's worth bringing up here, as well. To me the issue is about whether you should be able to say or otherwise publish statements even if they elicit demands for censorship. Many people are extremely uncomfortable with open discourse about pedophilia in anything other than a pejorative sense (but see dogma's example above regarding psychology). Similarly, open religious debate in public settings has a way of making people uncomfortable. At issue is not merely the state's response to these situations but also how privately owned businesses or, to put a fine point on it in the context of this thread, individuals are treating them.
I could see referencing it, but it really should be its own thread. The two cases both relate to free speech but are otherwise not similar.
33004
Post by: Elmodiddly
It is interesting to see reviews of this book. Classical rage and hyperbole comes forth with comments about death not being good enough and prison, for life, without parole always a favourite insert in many "reviews" I saw.
For some who assured that they had read the book adm itted that the book made them uncomforable and didn't finish reading the book because they didn't like exploring the feelings that a paedophile has in certain circumstances.
What I did not expect was for some reviews to actually agree that the book was not advocating the acts but actually highlights the nature of the person and one review actually felt sorry for these people who are torn about their feelings. They all said that the book was unpleasant and uncomfortable reading with several chapters getting quite personal and graphic.
From what I can gather, from the reviews I read, those who examined the whole book as a review piece left more rational and less emotional reviews than those who admitted to not finishing the book.
Weird that.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
New thread opened:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/335337.page#2257699
Feel free to copy & paste your comments from here to the other thread. I don't have the capability to just move them over; I'm going to be deleting them from this one shortly as Off Topic.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:And I don't believe him, at all.
I believe prosecutors and police more than Dogma.
Of course you do. It's what you do all the time. You have your side, and you believe everything they say, and dismiss everything the other side says. At no point do you ever stop and actually consider the facts of the situation.
It's why you keep being wrong about stuff.
5534
Post by: dogma
Elmodiddly wrote:
From what I can gather, from the reviews I read, those who examined the whole book as a review piece left more rational and less emotional reviews than those who admitted to not finishing the book.
Weird that.
I don't think its that odd. Rationality is at odds with emotion, and if you can suppress your emotions, or simply do not experience emotions, when reading something that is nominally distasteful, then there is a good chance that you can also produce solid arguments about the thing in question.
I mean, take me for example, I'm a pretty cold person in general. I don't have strong feelings about many things, and those strong feelings that I have are pretty easy for me to control (when sober). I was able to read the book because I didn't have any sort of gut reaction to its content. It was just a book containing sentences about concepts, events, and things, just like any other.
|
|
