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.

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......

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

I found it interesting Dogma has read the book.

I find it interesting that you haven't.

Frazzled wrote:I found it interesting Dogma has read the book.

Oh no he didn't!
Yes, Frazzled went there!

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.

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.

I find it interesting that Fraz cannot conquer his own distaste in order to confront an issue that might affect his children.

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...

Did someone say puppy?

Frazzled wrote:Did someone say puppy?

I HAVE STARED INTO THE INFINITE VOID AND SAW ONLY DEATH....

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

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.

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....... ......

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the first time EVER Frazzed is 100% right!

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