Pedophile Handbook, now in Kindle edition!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, I'd just like to point out that the "slippery slope fallacy" is what we're currently on with regards to civil liberties.

That's going pretty well for everyone, I guess.

[Bruno]

Most of my favorite websites teach people how to commit felonies.

Just saying.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Now PETA wants a piece of Amazon too:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/12/peta-wants-amazon-to-stop-selling-guides-to-dogfighting/

[Placid Dingo]

To clarify, I'm talking about people profiting from instructing how to commit serious crimes that cause direct measurable, physical harm to others.

*Date Rape made easy
*Torture, Kill and Get Away with it!
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but these are the kinds of things that would... not so much 'not exist' as not be profitable or public.

I see the abortion issue inside of that interpretation, but I would think in that scenario, the concern would be more to do with the laws regarding abortion directly, rather than the associated literature. Anyway, I should think that medical literature is in a different class. If I  removed parts of your body, that would be a crime; I'm more than certain that even where abortion is a crime there would be circumstances in which it was technically a viable medical option. It remains in practice in Queensland, though is practised commonly under different loopholes. So, I'm not talking about legislation that is designed to sucker in anything that could possibly suck in anything that could slightly seen as though it could possibly in some way somehow be comparable to the sentiment expressed. Talking about specific legislation that would stop works with the above definition. And, despite the obviously controversy seeking description of the 'Handbook' I'm not saying that is WOULD, but if it does, then yeah, ban the bastard thing.

Jerry, I'm not talking about Eroid's guide to making bongs or any such. I'm talking about a specific type of material, being prevented from commercial publication.

Nigel, I'm happy to say there may be (as far as I can see from across the ocean) a problematic decline of civil liberties in America. I don't think that slippery slopes don't happen. But I think a good argument needs to say more than, "if this was taken too far, it would be bad."

[Lies]

To clarify, I'm talking about people profiting from instructing how to commit serious crimes that cause direct measurable, physical harm to others.

*Date Rape made easy
*Torture, Kill and Get Away with it!
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but these are the kinds of things that would... not so much 'not exist' as not be profitable or public.

I see the abortion issue inside of that interpretation, but I would think in that scenario, the concern would be more to do with the laws regarding abortion directly, rather than the associated literature. Anyway, I should think that medical literature is in a different class. If I  removed parts of your body, that would be a crime; I'm more than certain that even where abortion is a crime there would be circumstances in which it was technically a viable medical option. It remains in practice in Queensland, though is practised commonly under different loopholes. So, I'm not talking about legislation that is designed to sucker in anything that could possibly suck in anything that could slightly seen as though it could possibly in some way somehow be comparable to the sentiment expressed. Talking about specific legislation that would stop works with the above definition. And, despite the obviously controversy seeking description of the 'Handbook' I'm not saying that is WOULD, but if it does, then yeah, ban the bastard thing.

Jerry, I'm not talking about Eroid's guide to making bongs or any such. I'm talking about a specific type of material, being prevented from commercial publication.

Nigel, I'm happy to say there may be (as far as I can see from across the ocean) a problematic decline of civil liberties in America. I don't think that slippery slopes don't happen. But I think a good argument needs to say more than, "if this was taken too far, it would be bad."

So how do you feel about the anarchist cookbook?

[Placid Dingo]

To clarify, I'm talking about people profiting from instructing how to commit serious crimes that cause direct measurable, physical harm to others.

*Date Rape made easy
*Torture, Kill and Get Away with it!
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but these are the kinds of things that would... not so much 'not exist' as not be profitable or public.

I see the abortion issue inside of that interpretation, but I would think in that scenario, the concern would be more to do with the laws regarding abortion directly, rather than the associated literature. Anyway, I should think that medical literature is in a different class. If I  removed parts of your body, that would be a crime; I'm more than certain that even where abortion is a crime there would be circumstances in which it was technically a viable medical option. It remains in practice in Queensland, though is practised commonly under different loopholes. So, I'm not talking about legislation that is designed to sucker in anything that could possibly suck in anything that could slightly seen as though it could possibly in some way somehow be comparable to the sentiment expressed. Talking about specific legislation that would stop works with the above definition. And, despite the obviously controversy seeking description of the 'Handbook' I'm not saying that is WOULD, but if it does, then yeah, ban the bastard thing.

Jerry, I'm not talking about Eroid's guide to making bongs or any such. I'm talking about a specific type of material, being prevented from commercial publication.

Nigel, I'm happy to say there may be (as far as I can see from across the ocean) a problematic decline of civil liberties in America. I don't think that slippery slopes don't happen. But I think a good argument needs to say more than, "if this was taken too far, it would be bad."

So how do you feel about the anarchist cookbook?

In terms of the ideas I'm talking about, the Anarchist cookbook would be subject to the same test. I would imagine it would probably still be permitted for sale, ultimately, but that's a hypothetical about a hypothetical.

About the book in particular; I've never read it, and have heard that much of the content is inaccurate or out of date, so I can't really comment.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm sorry, I just think that once you start legislating against objectionable ideas, you might as well burn the Constitution.

Which is already happening, so, fuck it. Whatever. Bow to your masters, serfs; you have no rights, and no power.

[Lies]

To clarify, I'm talking about people profiting from instructing how to commit serious crimes that cause direct measurable, physical harm to others.

*Date Rape made easy
*Torture, Kill and Get Away with it!
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but these are the kinds of things that would... not so much 'not exist' as not be profitable or public.

I see the abortion issue inside of that interpretation, but I would think in that scenario, the concern would be more to do with the laws regarding abortion directly, rather than the associated literature. Anyway, I should think that medical literature is in a different class. If I  removed parts of your body, that would be a crime; I'm more than certain that even where abortion is a crime there would be circumstances in which it was technically a viable medical option. It remains in practice in Queensland, though is practised commonly under different loopholes. So, I'm not talking about legislation that is designed to sucker in anything that could possibly suck in anything that could slightly seen as though it could possibly in some way somehow be comparable to the sentiment expressed. Talking about specific legislation that would stop works with the above definition. And, despite the obviously controversy seeking description of the 'Handbook' I'm not saying that is WOULD, but if it does, then yeah, ban the bastard thing.

Jerry, I'm not talking about Eroid's guide to making bongs or any such. I'm talking about a specific type of material, being prevented from commercial publication.

Nigel, I'm happy to say there may be (as far as I can see from across the ocean) a problematic decline of civil liberties in America. I don't think that slippery slopes don't happen. But I think a good argument needs to say more than, "if this was taken too far, it would be bad."

So how do you feel about the anarchist cookbook?

In terms of the ideas I'm talking about, the Anarchist cookbook would be subject to the same test. I would imagine it would probably still be permitted for sale, ultimately, but that's a hypothetical about a hypothetical.

About the book in particular; I've never read it, and have heard that much of the content is inaccurate or out of date, so I can't really comment.

Incidentally, I know *someone* who has a copy and knows that yes, a lot of it *is* inaccurate and wrong and dangerous and stupid.
Still, I agree with everyone else. As much as I detest that paedophile handbook, it should be allowed to exist for the sake of freedom of information.
Who knows, someone could possibly buy it and use it to *catch* pedophiles.

Funny though, cus did you know, we don't have anything that protects our freedom of speech in Australia?

[Placid Dingo]

To clarify, I'm talking about people profiting from instructing how to commit serious crimes that cause direct measurable, physical harm to others.

*Date Rape made easy
*Torture, Kill and Get Away with it!
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but these are the kinds of things that would... not so much 'not exist' as not be profitable or public.

I see the abortion issue inside of that interpretation, but I would think in that scenario, the concern would be more to do with the laws regarding abortion directly, rather than the associated literature. Anyway, I should think that medical literature is in a different class. If I  removed parts of your body, that would be a crime; I'm more than certain that even where abortion is a crime there would be circumstances in which it was technically a viable medical option. It remains in practice in Queensland, though is practised commonly under different loopholes. So, I'm not talking about legislation that is designed to sucker in anything that could possibly suck in anything that could slightly seen as though it could possibly in some way somehow be comparable to the sentiment expressed. Talking about specific legislation that would stop works with the above definition. And, despite the obviously controversy seeking description of the 'Handbook' I'm not saying that is WOULD, but if it does, then yeah, ban the bastard thing.

Jerry, I'm not talking about Eroid's guide to making bongs or any such. I'm talking about a specific type of material, being prevented from commercial publication.

Nigel, I'm happy to say there may be (as far as I can see from across the ocean) a problematic decline of civil liberties in America. I don't think that slippery slopes don't happen. But I think a good argument needs to say more than, "if this was taken too far, it would be bad."

So how do you feel about the anarchist cookbook?

In terms of the ideas I'm talking about, the Anarchist cookbook would be subject to the same test. I would imagine it would probably still be permitted for sale, ultimately, but that's a hypothetical about a hypothetical.

About the book in particular; I've never read it, and have heard that much of the content is inaccurate or out of date, so I can't really comment.

Incidentally, I know *someone* who has a copy and knows that yes, a lot of it *is* inaccurate and wrong and dangerous and stupid.
Still, I agree with everyone else. As much as I detest that paedophile handbook, it should be allowed to exist for the sake of freedom of information.
Who knows, someone could possibly buy it and use it to *catch* pedophiles.

Funny though, cus did you know, we don't have anything that protects our freedom of speech in Australia?

Yeah. I've heard the idea of an Aussie Bill of Rights discussed a few times but its always been put away, I think due to pragmatics.

Anyway, as bolded, my main concern is that some things should at least not be allowed to exist as commercial products. That's the main point I'm arguing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To clarify, I'm talking about people profiting from instructing how to commit serious crimes that cause direct measurable, physical harm to others.

*Date Rape made easy
*Torture, Kill and Get Away with it!
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but these are the kinds of things that would... not so much 'not exist' as not be profitable or public.

I see the abortion issue inside of that interpretation, but I would think in that scenario, the concern would be more to do with the laws regarding abortion directly, rather than the associated literature. Anyway, I should think that medical literature is in a different class. If I  removed parts of your body, that would be a crime; I'm more than certain that even where abortion is a crime there would be circumstances in which it was technically a viable medical option. It remains in practice in Queensland, though is practised commonly under different loopholes. So, I'm not talking about legislation that is designed to sucker in anything that could possibly suck in anything that could slightly seen as though it could possibly in some way somehow be comparable to the sentiment expressed. Talking about specific legislation that would stop works with the above definition. And, despite the obviously controversy seeking description of the 'Handbook' I'm not saying that is WOULD, but if it does, then yeah, ban the bastard thing.

Jerry, I'm not talking about Eroid's guide to making bongs or any such. I'm talking about a specific type of material, being prevented from commercial publication.

Nigel, I'm happy to say there may be (as far as I can see from across the ocean) a problematic decline of civil liberties in America. I don't think that slippery slopes don't happen. But I think a good argument needs to say more than, "if this was taken too far, it would be bad."

So how do you feel about the anarchist cookbook?

In terms of the ideas I'm talking about, the Anarchist cookbook would be subject to the same test. I would imagine it would probably still be permitted for sale, ultimately, but that's a hypothetical about a hypothetical.

About the book in particular; I've never read it, and have heard that much of the content is inaccurate or out of date, so I can't really comment.

Incidentally, I know *someone* who has a copy and knows that yes, a lot of it *is* inaccurate and wrong and dangerous and stupid.
Still, I agree with everyone else. As much as I detest that paedophile handbook, it should be allowed to exist for the sake of freedom of information.
Who knows, someone could possibly buy it and use it to *catch* pedophiles.

Funny though, cus did you know, we don't have anything that protects our freedom of speech in Australia?

We used to sell it at Borders, and it was fairly stupid.

[Bruno]

I used to have one when I was in my early twenties. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world to have at the time.

Now I realize it was crap. The "artwork" looked like Xeroxed crayon drawings, and I could come up with better designs for bombs myself if I wanted to.

I will have to say that the recipe for nitrogen tri-iodide seems to have been spot on, though.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Nitrogen-Triiodide/

Basically, any 9 year old today who has had unfiltered internet access for a few hours, and an inclination to learn how to make bombs and drugs could write a better book.

[Faust]

While yes, Slippery slope is one of the classical logical fallacy's, I don't agree with you.

The Marquis De Sade's 120 days in Sodom contains material far far worse then this and is considered a classic. Its grotesque and awful, but sometimes we need that feeling of outrage in order to do the right thing.

How about medical manuals that detail abortion procedures?

Abortion isn't illegal NOW. But it could easily become illegal again in the US, and a law that banned the pedophile handbook would likely also ban any book that explained abortion procedures, in that case.

Um, that's what I  said, I'm completely against banning it. Its a necessary horror and draws attention to a nasty social problem that seems to get neglected.
Its just that slippery slope phrase is the logical fallacy, the problem may be there but there are better ways to address it.

[Rumckle]

The slope is only slippery if you hold a pissing match on it.

[Cain]

As Lys pointed out, making that book available probably yields a lot of useful information which helps catch pedophiles.  Apart from detailing their methods, which are fairly widely known, it also means you have their credit card details on a server somewhere, and no doubt if this were to be cross-referenced with a list of, say, sex-offenders, it could produce some interesting returns.

Or to put it another way, I had to read a lot of shitty books in terrorism studies.  Sayid Qutb comes to mind.  Qutb preached violent, Islamist revolution in the Middle East.  He is the inspiration for Al-Qaeda, Hamas, LeT and other dangerous groups.  Qutb was very clear on what the fate of the nonbeliever should be - subjugation or death.  He didn't write nice books.  But if you want to understand Al-Qaeda, you have to understand Qutb.  You also have to read books like the Mini-Guerrilla manual, KGB and CIA guides on covert warfare and assassination, Fascist propaganda (I've also read the Turner Diaries, a favourite on the Patriot militia circle), revolutionary Marxist and Anarchist propaganda, Animal Rights literature and so on if you want any real appreciation of the mindset and logic employed by such people.

[Faust]

The slope is only slippery if you hold a pissing match on it.

There's no pissing match here.