Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

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.

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.

Moderators are allowed to get into disagreements. We normally attempt to separate acting as a poster from acting as a Mod where possible.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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!

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.

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??

Hey I didn't edit it!

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.

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.

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!

Sweet, did Frazz just banhammer himself?

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.

Here is a little tidbit....sometimes police get things wrong.

GG

Just wondering if there is an actual subject underlying this thread or if I should lock it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OT- moved to other thread

dogma wrote:I mean, I can start calling the Bible a book of Satanic quotes, but that doesn't make it true.

Actually...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.