http://www.amazon.com/Pedophiles-Guide-Love-Pleasure-ebook/dp/B0049U4CF6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AZC9TZ4UC9CFC&s=digital-text&qid=1289410323&sr=8-1
QuoteI can't thank Amazon enough for keeping this great work of literature up for those of us with "special tastes." The instructions and images in the guide were extremely insightful and led to a wonderful experience for both myself and my partner. Thank you for protecting free speech, Amazon!
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 10, 2010, 08:09:52 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Pedophiles-Guide-Love-Pleasure-ebook/dp/B0049U4CF6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AZC9TZ4UC9CFC&s=digital-text&qid=1289410323&sr=8-1
QuoteI can't thank Amazon enough for keeping this great work of literature up for those of us with "special tastes." The instructions and images in the guide were extremely insightful and led to a wonderful experience for both myself and my partner. Thank you for protecting free speech, Amazon!
:horrormirth:
WHAAAAAT THE FUCK??? :x
There's a link you can click on if you have an account where you can tell them the content is offensive. I made one just to send a message to customer service about it.
Amazon's Response:
"Let me assure you that Amazon.com does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts; we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."
"Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable."
I agree, but it still freaks me out.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2010, 08:58:42 PM
I agree, but it still freaks me out.
THIS... I seriously hope this was written by someone doing a psychological experiment to see how far they could stretch the first amendment. However, I fear that is not the case. Though the author's description seems so absurd that I hope its an experiment :cry:
Quote"This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught. "
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2010, 08:58:42 PM
I agree, but it still freaks me out.
Same.
Reminds me of that former nurse that was talking people into suicide. I still think it should count under free speech, but holy shit is it creepy.
Aside from the given that this is absolutely disgusting. I put kiddie fiddlers right at the top of the scum of the scum list, but...
I wonder if an argument cannot be made against selling instructions on how to commit a felony. Free speech or no.
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:26:46 PM
Aside from the given that this is absolutely disgusting. I put kiddie fiddlers right at the top of the scum of the scum list, but...
I wonder if an argument cannot be made against selling instructions on how to commit a felony. Free speech or no.
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:26:46 PM
Aside from the given that this is absolutely disgusting. I put kiddie fiddlers right at the top of the scum of the scum list, but...
I wonder if an argument cannot be made against selling instructions on how to commit a felony. Free speech or no.
That means "or no".
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
"The government" or at least the police, are the main distributers of child pornography, currently.
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:57:52 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
"The government" or at least the police, are the main distributers of child pornography, currently.
The TSA is doing a bang up job of it, too. Turns out the screwy pervs are saving backscatter images to disk and then exporting them.
:lulz:
That doesn't surprise me at all. Unfortunately.
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 10:02:27 PM
That doesn't surprise me at all. Unfortunately.
There really is no bottom, Cain! :lulz:
Goddamnit. I had forgotten about this shit. WHY DOESN'T ONE OF THESE JESI MAKE AN OBJECT HARD ENOUGH FOR ME TO SHATTER MY SKULL ON FOR THIS SHIT!?
On the other hand, Amazon now has a handy list of potential paedophiles.
Quote from: Lysergic on November 10, 2010, 10:07:38 PM
On the other hand, Amazon now has a handy list of potential paedophiles.
Yes, they'll be useful to wheel out when the Feds want to justify clamping down on the internet even more.
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
I don't think it would be desirable under any circumstances for the government to start finding "loopholes" in the first amendment.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:57:52 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
"The government" or at least the police, are the main distributers of child pornography, currently.
The TSA is doing a bang up job of it, too. Turns out the screwy pervs are saving backscatter images to disk and then exporting them.
:lulz:
Source?
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 10, 2010, 11:12:02 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
I don't think it would be desirable under any circumstances for the government to start finding "loopholes" in the first amendment.
Because they don't already when it suits them?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 10, 2010, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:57:52 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
"The government" or at least the police, are the main distributers of child pornography, currently.
The TSA is doing a bang up job of it, too. Turns out the screwy pervs are saving backscatter images to disk and then exporting them.
:lulz:
Source?
When I get home.
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:57:52 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
"The government" or at least the police, are the main distributers of child pornography, currently.
Speaking of sources, source?
Also, HIMEOBS agents and sleepers are encouraged to take action on the matter of this handbook. (yes, that was an obscure legal pun, but really, you're encouraged)
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 10, 2010, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:57:52 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
"The government" or at least the police, are the main distributers of child pornography, currently.
The TSA is doing a bang up job of it, too. Turns out the screwy pervs are saving backscatter images to disk and then exporting them.
:lulz:
Source?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
If you give a shit about your country, it's your duty to make sure this horseshit spreads far and wide. From NPR to talk radio. From Local affiliates to multinational news organziations.
Free speech also means as a company
they can choose what books they sell or don't sell.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 11, 2010, 01:27:46 AM
Free speech also means as a company
they can choose what books they sell or don't sell.
QFT
IMO, counting companies as human beings is bullshit but legally they are so as actual human beings, you guys ought to raise a lot of shit.
Quote from: Grade 7 Pannus on November 11, 2010, 02:38:03 AM
IMO, counting companies as human beings is bullshit but legally they are so as actual human beings, you guys ought to raise a lot of shit.
No argument there. I just don't want the government getting a chance to start deciding what books are legal.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 11, 2010, 01:27:46 AM
Free speech also means as a company
they can choose what books they sell or don't sell.
This is true, but then they're on a slippery slope, as a company. It's really the most prudent course of action for them to not censor their catalog at all.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 10, 2010, 08:09:52 PM
QuoteI can't thank Amazon enough for keeping this great work of literature up for those of us with "special tastes." The instructions and images in the guide were extremely insightful and led to a wonderful experience for both myself and my partner. Thank you for protecting free speech, Amazon!
Please don't tell me "my partner" means what I think it means...
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 11, 2010, 03:22:47 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 10, 2010, 08:09:52 PM
QuoteI can't thank Amazon enough for keeping this great work of literature up for those of us with "special tastes." The instructions and images in the guide were extremely insightful and led to a wonderful experience for both myself and my partner. Thank you for protecting free speech, Amazon!
Please don't tell me "my partner" means what I think it means...
Gee, TGRR, why do you hate so much? :lulz:
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 11, 2010, 03:22:47 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 10, 2010, 08:09:52 PM
QuoteI can't thank Amazon enough for keeping this great work of literature up for those of us with "special tastes." The instructions and images in the guide were extremely insightful and led to a wonderful experience for both myself and my partner. Thank you for protecting free speech, Amazon!
Please don't tell me "my partner" means what I think it means...
I wouldn't fret too much; that's clearly a troll review.
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2010, 03:26:02 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 11, 2010, 03:22:47 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 10, 2010, 08:09:52 PM
QuoteI can't thank Amazon enough for keeping this great work of literature up for those of us with "special tastes." The instructions and images in the guide were extremely insightful and led to a wonderful experience for both myself and my partner. Thank you for protecting free speech, Amazon!
Please don't tell me "my partner" means what I think it means...
I wouldn't fret too much; that's clearly a troll review.
No, sadly I dont think it is.
:x
I myself dont see why people are so upset,
Its not like people ever read the instruction booklets anyways.
:rimshot:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 11, 2010, 03:54:04 AM
I myself dont see why people are so upset,
Its not like people ever read the instruction booklets anyways.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 11, 2010, 03:48:34 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2010, 03:26:02 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 11, 2010, 03:22:47 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on November 10, 2010, 08:09:52 PM
QuoteI can't thank Amazon enough for keeping this great work of literature up for those of us with "special tastes." The instructions and images in the guide were extremely insightful and led to a wonderful experience for both myself and my partner. Thank you for protecting free speech, Amazon!
Please don't tell me "my partner" means what I think it means...
I wouldn't fret too much; that's clearly a troll review.
No, sadly I dont think it is.
:x
Why don't you?
Amazon is crawling with troll reviewers, and it's highly unlikely that an actual pedophile would write something publicly documenting themselves as such.
Links 404 from UK.
(http://imgur.com/IH2WL.jpg)
Quote from: Grade 7 Pannus on November 11, 2010, 01:13:32 AM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:57:52 PM
Quote from: Niamh on November 10, 2010, 09:43:57 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 10, 2010, 09:32:06 PM
It can't.
Paladin Press, for example, is built on selling books teaching people how to commit illegal acts, or acquire skills which would be of use to a criminal (often badly, it must be said).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2010, 09:41:39 PM
Nope, speech is protected, only acts are illegal.
You would think someone (like the government) would have found some type of loophole. But then again, they only fuck with the constitution if it is to their benefit right?
"The government" or at least the police, are the main distributers of child pornography, currently.
Speaking of sources, source?
Also, HIMEOBS agents and sleepers are encouraged to take action on the matter of this handbook. (yes, that was an obscure legal pun, but really, you're encouraged)
According to a Benjamin A. Cardozo Law Review study done in the 1980s, it was concluded that the majority of child porn being distributed was by the police. The internet may have changed that...but I somehow doubt it, especially with the evidence gathered in "Operation Ore" and the like...it takes a dirty cop with a flash drive a few minutes to copy said evidence, and with the competition in jail he can make a very quick buck, plus blackmail his clients if he finds out their identity. Very lucrative.
Agreed w/ previous posts. This particular expression of the right to fee whatever offends me, but I'd rather be offended than not have it.
I'm also wondering who, as a publisher, even for kindle, thought this was a good idea. Sort of shooting themselves in the foot more than making a buck of a niche market.
Ok, now I'm curious if anyone has actually read this book. The whole thing could be a tasteless joke/object lesson/sociological experiement/political landmine.
I mean, I could self-publish a book and put it on Amazon called, "Making love to your kittens: a how-to guide for at-home beastiality" with little to no content, and it would probably stir up a shitstorm from the title alone.
I'm not saying I approve, but I'm curious if anyone has gone deeper into what's going on here.
But do we really want Uncle BadTouch posting here again?
As I understood it (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) racism and homophobia are not covered under free speech by way of some "incitement to badwrong hatecrime" or some bullshit. I don't agree with this for reasons already stated ITT but, if it's the case then surely there's a similar case for kiddiefucking?
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on November 11, 2010, 02:52:15 PM
As I understood it (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) racism and homophobia are not covered under free speech by way of some "incitement to badwrong hatecrime" or some bullshit. I don't agree with this for reasons already stated ITT but, if it's the case then surely there's a similar case for kiddiefucking?
That has been whirling in the back of my brain since I read this and I just can't write what I really wanted to say. I can't find the reference but I am almost positive it was something in Texas and the death of some kid there...
I'll keep looking. :|
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on November 11, 2010, 02:52:15 PM
As I understood it (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) racism and homophobia are not covered under free speech by way of some "incitement to badwrong hatecrime" or some bullshit. I don't agree with this for reasons already stated ITT but, if it's the case then surely there's a similar case for kiddiefucking?
Racism and homophobia are protected speech, as long as you don't say "Let's go kill us some Kike Faggots!! Here's the rope!"
But you can say "Homosexuals will go to HELL!!!" "God Hates Fags!" "Those Jews secretly control all the money!!" or even "Here's my 600 page book documenting how "evil the jews are/stupid black people are/diseased gays" are, or "Best practices for kiddie fucking".
Don't like what they say, but I'm still glad that the government isn't going after them for saying it.
How about HOLOCAUST FOR DUMMIES ?
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
Racism and homophobia are protected speech, as long as you don't say "Let's go kill us some Kike Faggots!! Here's the rope!"
But you can say "Homosexuals will go to HELL!!!" "God Hates Fags!" "Those Jews secretly control all the money!!" or even "Here's my 600 page book documenting how "evil the jews are/stupid black people are/diseased gays" are, or "Best practices for kiddie fucking".
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
Don't like what they say, but I'm still glad that the government isn't going after them for saying it.
This! Free speech is a boolean concept - you either have it or you don't. You draw a line across it, anywhere, even somewhere that looks totally reasonable on the surface, that's it gone.
Theirs is the right to spout whatever vile, senseless, fucked up bullshit they choose. Ours is the right to call them "cunts"
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2010, 03:21:00 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 11, 2010, 01:27:46 AM
Free speech also means as a company
they can choose what books they sell or don't sell.
This is true, but then they're on a slippery slope, as a company. It's really the most prudent course of action for them to not censor their catalog at all.
But at the end of the day it is still self censorship, if it was the state that be another thing completely.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 11, 2010, 07:05:18 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2010, 03:21:00 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 11, 2010, 01:27:46 AM
Free speech also means as a company
they can choose what books they sell or don't sell.
This is true, but then they're on a slippery slope, as a company. It's really the most prudent course of action for them to not censor their catalog at all.
But at the end of the day it is still self censorship, if it was the state that be another thing completely.
So you don't want the government to censor... but you trust private corporations that may have all sorts of ulterior motives to censor? Ick.
Not so much "trust" as "freedom of speech also means not being forced to carry a title if you don't want to."
That being said, the first page might read, "Just kidding! What kind of guy do you think I am?"
Christian bookstores don't sell atheist books, and except for hippie shops your not likely to find a physical copy of the anarchist cookbook. But Considering I found a copy of TCI at borders, sure it was next to Atlas shrugged, At least it was there.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 11, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
Christian bookstores don't sell atheist books, and except for hippie shops your not likely to find a physical copy of the anarchist cookbook. But Considering I found a copy of TCI at borders, sure it was next to Atlas shrugged, At least it was there.
Where do you live? I know of at least seven average bookstores in Toronto that sell the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 11, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
Christian bookstores don't sell atheist books, and except for hippie shops your not likely to find a physical copy of the anarchist cookbook. But Considering I found a copy of TCI at borders, sure it was next to Atlas shrugged, At least it was there.
i saw a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook in a Bookman's once.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 11, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
Christian bookstores don't sell atheist books, and except for hippie shops your not likely to find a physical copy of the anarchist cookbook. But Considering I found a copy of TCI at borders, sure it was next to Atlas shrugged, At least it was there.
A Christian bookstore is aiming for a very niche market, though I suppose pedophilia may be of interest to at least some of the clients....
Amazon is trying to provide a very wide market. I see no reason to bitch at them for having a "no censorship" approach.
Yep better to boycott them for inflated prices (and shit returns for authors)
then books they may or may not carry
I always thought they had good prices.
Has I a dumb? :?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2010, 08:14:43 PM
I always thought they had good prices.
Has I a dumb? :?
Me too.
Compaired to half price or used book stores, :argh!:
but if your talking retail, even then they are a few bucks off
Example walmart has hardback alice for ninteen (free shipping)
while amazon has it for twenty (and you have to spend five dollars more for free shipping)
Also publishers like lulu give authors more per book then amazon
Amazon pulled it due to boycott threats.
It was only a matter of time.
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
Amazon pulled it due to boycott threats.
Which is a perfect example of Freedom of Speech in action!
Its so rare that our system works in any way shape or form that I'm taking some joy in this. I'm sure it will be a long time before it happens again ;-)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 11, 2010, 02:13:56 PM
Ok, now I'm curious if anyone has actually read this book. The whole thing could be a tasteless joke/object lesson/sociological experiement/political landmine.
I mean, I could self-publish a book and put it on Amazon called, "Making love to your kittens: a how-to guide for at-home beastiality" with little to no content, and it would probably stir up a shitstorm from the title alone.
I'm not saying I approve, but I'm curious if anyone has gone deeper into what's going on here.
Im sure torrents are fucking everywhere now. The problem is finding them, I for one do not want to know happens when you google "pedophile handbook"
The NSA put your name on a database, and then if they ever need anything from you....
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on November 11, 2010, 03:44:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
Racism and homophobia are protected speech, as long as you don't say "Let's go kill us some Kike Faggots!! Here's the rope!"
But you can say "Homosexuals will go to HELL!!!" "God Hates Fags!" "Those Jews secretly control all the money!!" or even "Here's my 600 page book documenting how "evil the jews are/stupid black people are/diseased gays" are, or "Best practices for kiddie fucking".
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
Don't like what they say, but I'm still glad that the government isn't going after them for saying it.
This! Free speech is a boolean concept - you either have it or you don't. You draw a line across it, anywhere, even somewhere that looks totally reasonable on the surface, that's it gone.
Theirs is the right to spout whatever vile, senseless, fucked up bullshit they choose. Ours is the right to call them "cunts"
Out of curiousity, am I the only one who disagrees and thinks there should be laws in place about at least profiting from works instructing others in a heinous (directly harming others) crime.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 02:57:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on November 11, 2010, 03:44:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
Racism and homophobia are protected speech, as long as you don't say "Let's go kill us some Kike Faggots!! Here's the rope!"
But you can say "Homosexuals will go to HELL!!!" "God Hates Fags!" "Those Jews secretly control all the money!!" or even "Here's my 600 page book documenting how "evil the jews are/stupid black people are/diseased gays" are, or "Best practices for kiddie fucking".
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
Don't like what they say, but I'm still glad that the government isn't going after them for saying it.
This! Free speech is a boolean concept - you either have it or you don't. You draw a line across it, anywhere, even somewhere that looks totally reasonable on the surface, that's it gone.
Theirs is the right to spout whatever vile, senseless, fucked up bullshit they choose. Ours is the right to call them "cunts"
Out of curiousity, am I the only one who disagrees and thinks there should be laws in place about at least profiting from works instructing others in a heinous (directly harming others) crime.
I'm just going to throw out the words "slippery slope" and see if you have the reasoning skills to figure out what makes it one.
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2010, 03:27:39 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 02:57:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on November 11, 2010, 03:44:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
Racism and homophobia are protected speech, as long as you don't say "Let's go kill us some Kike Faggots!! Here's the rope!"
But you can say "Homosexuals will go to HELL!!!" "God Hates Fags!" "Those Jews secretly control all the money!!" or even "Here's my 600 page book documenting how "evil the jews are/stupid black people are/diseased gays" are, or "Best practices for kiddie fucking".
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
Don't like what they say, but I'm still glad that the government isn't going after them for saying it.
This! Free speech is a boolean concept - you either have it or you don't. You draw a line across it, anywhere, even somewhere that looks totally reasonable on the surface, that's it gone.
Theirs is the right to spout whatever vile, senseless, fucked up bullshit they choose. Ours is the right to call them "cunts"
Out of curiousity, am I the only one who disagrees and thinks there should be laws in place about at least profiting from works instructing others in a heinous (directly harming others) crime.
I'm just going to throw out the words "slippery slope" and see if you have the reasoning skills to figure out what makes it one.
I 'get' the slippery slope arguments. I also tend to avoid them. I really really find something fundamentally unpleasant about SS because it applies to basically everything.
"My objection to X is that if it was taken to the extremity, it would be bad."
Well, no shit Sherlock.
We should not make people divide rubbish and recycling because soon we could need thirty types of seperation containers with separate requirements that will confuse anyone! (also, take this down to 12 and you have Japan).
We should not let people have freedom of speech because soon we'll have websites showing people brutally murdered live, protected under freedom of symbolic speech!
If we implement Obama's health care system soon we'll be a Socialist nation!
Basically ANYTHING looks like a crap idea using slippery slope, so it's not a preferred argument of mine.
In Oz we have laws saying you cannot benefit from your crime. So you can't kick a puppy, go to jail, then make a best-selling novel 'I kicked that puppy!: A memoir'.
Also, I'm sure there are a number of other laws around classified information, identifying victims/perps of sexual abuse, other things etc.
So I don't think saying NO you CANNOT make money of teaching efficient means of specific crimes is an unreasonable extension.
All of this is besides the point.
My question is; am I the only one of this opinion here? That's what I'd like to know.
Edit for clarity.
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.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 04:31:45 AM
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 better than this and is a literary and human sexuality classic. Sometimes we need that. In DeSade's case, we needed it. This other book sounds stupid.
Quote from: E.O.T. on November 13, 2010, 04:38:18 AM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 04:31:45 AM
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 better than this and is a literary and human sexuality classic. Sometimes we need that. In DeSade's case, we needed it. This other book sounds stupid.
The acts depicted in the book were far far worse. Though I agree that this book sounds stupid.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
Amazon pulled it due to boycott threats.
Which is a perfect example of Freedom of Speech in action!
Its so rare that our system works in any way shape or form that I'm taking some joy in this. I'm sure it will be a long time before it happens again ;-)
I don't see and difference between boycot threats and government intervention being used to pull the book. Mob rule on different scales is all.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 04:42:20 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on November 13, 2010, 04:38:18 AM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 04:31:45 AM
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 better than this and is a literary and human sexuality classic. Sometimes we need that. In DeSade's case, we needed it. This other book sounds stupid.
The acts depicted in the book were far far worse. Though I agree that this book sounds stupid.
HA!
most of what occurres(how the fuck is this word spelled?!) in a DeSade book is physically impossible. That's not including the anatomical! the rest is poetry.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 04:31:45 AM
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.
My problem isn't the offensiveness, it's the ability for a 'how to guide' of this sort to be a commercial product.
That said, I haven't read it, or Sade. But if what's being said is accurate, and this is a how to guide for paedophiles then it meets the scenario I described above, and this is where I stand.
Edit: Clarity. Again.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 04:43:53 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2010, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
Amazon pulled it due to boycott threats.
Which is a perfect example of Freedom of Speech in action!
Its so rare that our system works in any way shape or form that I'm taking some joy in this. I'm sure it will be a long time before it happens again ;-)
I don't see and difference between boycot threats and government intervention being used to pull the book. Mob rule on different scales is all.
Market pressure vs. legislation.
Also, by waiting for a boycott to threaten their business, Amazon gives themselves an out, vs. just pulling it for "offensive content" without market pressure.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 04:31:45 AM
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.
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.
Most of my favorite websites teach people how to commit felonies.
Just saying.
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/
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."
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 06:49:00 AM
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?
Quote from: Lysergic on November 13, 2010, 07:21:39 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 06:49:00 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 07:47:01 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on November 13, 2010, 07:21:39 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 06:49:00 AM
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?
Quote from: Lysergic on November 13, 2010, 08:34:00 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 07:47:01 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on November 13, 2010, 07:21:39 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 06:49:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Lysergic on November 13, 2010, 08:34:00 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 07:47:01 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on November 13, 2010, 07:21:39 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 13, 2010, 06:49:00 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2010, 06:22:23 AM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 04:31:45 AM
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.
The slope is only slippery if you hold a pissing match on it.
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.
Quote from: Rumckle on November 13, 2010, 11:03:12 AM
The slope is only slippery if you hold a pissing match on it.
There's no pissing match here.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 02:35:06 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on November 13, 2010, 11:03:12 AM
The slope is only slippery if you hold a pissing match on it.
There's no pissing match here.
What Faust said.
To back up a couple of posts, I dunno, I disagree that the slippery slope metaphor is a fallacy, though I'm viewing it as that; a metaphor, not an argument. I'm glad that we agree on the basic premise of not censoring information simply because it's repulsive. Pretending that bad ideas don't exist isn't constructive.
Free speech isn't free if your making money on it
Quote from: Pēleus on November 13, 2010, 10:44:02 PM
Free speech isn't free if your making money on it
:lulz: I hope you're just trying to be funny.
FREE SPEECH ISN'T FREE, IT COST THREE FIDDY
Actually, that's the whole point I've been making. This isn't such a free speech thing as an issue about limits of commercial products.
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2010, 12:04:33 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 13, 2010, 10:44:02 PM
Free speech isn't free if your making money on it
:lulz: I hope you're just trying to be funny.
Kinda, its trying to highlight aussie law, plus amazon got free publicity
Quote from: Pēleus on November 14, 2010, 01:31:49 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2010, 12:04:33 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 13, 2010, 10:44:02 PM
Free speech isn't free if your making money on it
:lulz: I hope you're just trying to be funny.
Kinda, its trying to highlight aussie law, plus amazon got free publicity
Looking at it this way, it's actually marketing genius. You know what they say, no such thing as bad publicity.
Quote from: Lysergic on November 14, 2010, 03:21:26 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 14, 2010, 01:31:49 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2010, 12:04:33 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 13, 2010, 10:44:02 PM
Free speech isn't free if your making money on it
:lulz: I hope you're just trying to be funny.
Kinda, its trying to highlight aussie law, plus amazon got free publicity
Looking at it this way, it's actually marketing genius. You know what they say, no such thing as bad publicity.
In show business.
This isn't show business.
Quote from: Net on November 14, 2010, 04:01:45 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on November 14, 2010, 03:21:26 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 14, 2010, 01:31:49 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2010, 12:04:33 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 13, 2010, 10:44:02 PM
Free speech isn't free if your making money on it
:lulz: I hope you're just trying to be funny.
Kinda, its trying to highlight aussie law, plus amazon got free publicity
Looking at it this way, it's actually marketing genius. You know what they say, no such thing as bad publicity.
In show business.
This isn't show business.
I think in this case, it still applies.
I'm all in favour of free speech, but it seems that the American version of it seems to protect people from the consequences of whatever fucked up hateshit it is that they say. For instance, the Westboro Baptist fuckwits can stand outside dead soldiers funerals, and spew all that hate filled bullshit, but if, as a direct consequence of this, a group of Veterans turn up and stomp the shit out of them, then the Law will come down in favour of the Baptards. If you are going to allow free speech like this,then you must allow for any reasonable consequences that occur from it.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2010, 02:35:06 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on November 13, 2010, 11:03:12 AM
The slope is only slippery if you hold a pissing match on it.
There's no pissing match here.
I'm not saying there is a pissing match at PD, I am saying regarding censorship and free speech in general there usually is.
That said, I can't remember exactly what point I was trying to make yesterday, so probably best just to ignore that for the time being.
Quote from: BadBeast on November 14, 2010, 12:55:20 PM
I'm all in favour of free speech, but it seems that the American version of it seems to protect people from the consequences of whatever fucked up hateshit it is that they say. For instance, the Westboro Baptist fuckwits can stand outside dead soldiers funerals, and spew all that hate filled bullshit, but if, as a direct consequence of this, a group of Veterans turn up and stomp the shit out of them, then the Law will come down in favour of the Baptards. If you are going to allow free speech like this,then you must allow for any reasonable consequences that occur from it.
The problem is, who decides what is hate speech?
Quote from: BadBeast on November 14, 2010, 12:55:20 PM
I'm all in favour of free speech, but it seems that the American version of it seems to protect people from the consequences of whatever fucked up hateshit it is that they say. For instance, the Westboro Baptist fuckwits can stand outside dead soldiers funerals, and spew all that hate filled bullshit, but if, as a direct consequence of this, a group of Veterans turn up and stomp the shit out of them, then the Law will come down in favour of the Baptards. If you are going to allow free speech like this,then you must allow for any reasonable consequences that occur from it.
No.
Do you realize that what you just said essentially justified violence against people who are saying something someone else doesn't like? "Reasonable consequences"? Really?
There is a difference between expression and violence, and the line is drawn there. A group of veterans would be free to come and stand with signs and counter-protest all they wanted, but not to physically attack the Westborotards.
Quote from: Lysergic on November 14, 2010, 07:02:20 AM
Quote from: Net on November 14, 2010, 04:01:45 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on November 14, 2010, 03:21:26 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 14, 2010, 01:31:49 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2010, 12:04:33 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 13, 2010, 10:44:02 PM
Free speech isn't free if your making money on it
:lulz: I hope you're just trying to be funny.
Kinda, its trying to highlight aussie law, plus amazon got free publicity
Looking at it this way, it's actually marketing genius. You know what they say, no such thing as bad publicity.
In show business.
This isn't show business.
I think in this case, it still applies.
Actually, bad publicity can be fatal for a retail merchant.
Quote from: BadBeast on November 14, 2010, 12:55:20 PM
I'm all in favour of free speech, but it seems that the American version of it seems to protect people from the consequences of whatever fucked up hateshit it is that they say. For instance, the Westboro Baptist fuckwits can stand outside dead soldiers funerals, and spew all that hate filled bullshit, but if, as a direct consequence of this, a group of Veterans turn up and stomp the shit out of them, then the Law will come down in favour of the Baptards. If you are going to allow free speech like this,then you must allow for any reasonable consequences that occur from it.
Stomping the shit out of someone for something they say that you don't like is not a reasonable consequence. They can be as ignorant and hateful as all get out, but you shouldn't be allowed to do violence to someone under that circumstance. You still want to be able to hate on whoever you hate on without them having the right (or whatever) to come and hurt you don't you?
To clarify an earlier statement (TGRR and I had a conversaton about this thread and I realized my post wasn't clear) I approve of Amazon taking it off their shelves, not censoring the thing entirely.
Freedom of speech =/= Have To Sell, Or You're Censoring
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on November 15, 2010, 05:17:01 AM
To clarify an earlier statement (TGRR and I had a conversaton about this thread and I realized my post wasn't clear) I approve of Amazon taking it off their shelves, not censoring the thing entirely.
Freedom of speech =/= Have To Sell, Or You're Censoring
Well, with that kind of publication, you're either in, or you're out. There's no half measures, really.
The difference between refusing to sell/spread (ideas) and censorship is that censorship is enforced with violence or the threat of violence.
Someone should forward this link to the TSA. :lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:37:45 PM
Someone should forward this link to the TSA. :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: BadBeast on November 14, 2010, 12:55:20 PM
I'm all in favour of free speech, but it seems that the American version of it seems to protect people from the consequences of whatever fucked up hateshit it is that they say. For instance, the Westboro Baptist fuckwits can stand outside dead soldiers funerals, and spew all that hate filled bullshit, but if, as a direct consequence of this, a group of Veterans turn up and stomp the shit out of them, then the Law will come down in favour of the Baptards. If you are going to allow free speech like this,then you must allow for any reasonable consequences that occur from it.
There is a limit. Fighting words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States) are not protected as free speech. Fred Phelps and his minions know the law and are careful to keep their speech from crossing over into what would be considered to be fighting words. That way, they can sue that group of veterans that turn up and stomp the shit out of them.
Legislation aside, and in this particular example, I think it would be perfectly acceptable behaviour
if the mourners stomped anyone who turned up at a funeral and behaved like that. It's entirely the correct way to deal with them. I'm not calling for them to be torn apart, or burned alive, but a good kicking is well overdue. If they then tried to sue whoever did it, then any sensible Legal System would have to say "Well, what did you expect? It serves you right". Nobody would be taking away their right to free speech, just showing them that abuse like that is going to have consequences that they should not be able to avoid, by hiding behind Lawyers.
So now Brownshirt mobs aren't intimidating people into self-censorship by kicking the shit out of them for saying things they dislike either?
Dunno. Is that anything like Baptist Mobs, goading people into violent reaction by outrageously abusing grief stricken mourners for burying people they dislike?
Um... yeah. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that violence is not an appropriate response to hate speech.
A bad argument demands counterarguments, not fists.
For instance what happened when the phelps croud showed up at cmic con and faced a parody of themselves in full cosplay glamour. It was glorious.
Quote from: Faust on November 16, 2010, 02:36:45 PM
For instance what happened when the phelps croud showed up at cmic con and faced a parody of themselves in full cosplay glamour. It was glorious.
Well yeah, I agree that's even better, but that was an organised and pre-planned response.
My point, is that if any person or persons, were to turn up at a funeral, any funeral, and behave in the way that the WBC behave, and in reaction to this, the righteously outraged mourners, (Who are there after all, to bury a loved one) were to give the offending person / persons a good hiding, would that be wrong?
Put yourself in the position of one of the mourners. A very dear and beloved family member's life has been cut short, in some pointless tragedy. You are trying to get through the worst fucking day of your life, and put your loved one in the ground, and some people, who have no connection whatsoever with any of the mourners, or the deceased, show up, and behave like the WBC. And they will not shut up.
In response to this, yourself and 3 of the pallbearers approach these people, who are shouting horrible untrue allegations against your dead family member, telling you that they will burn forever in Hellfire, because God hates fags, or some other spiteful nasty shite. Outraged, In pain and righteous anger, you punch that fucker out. Have you behaved inappropriately, given the circumstances? Can you honestly say that if this happened, you would be the one in the wrong?
Yup.
Next question?
LMNO speaks truth.
Just because an emotional response is understandable doesn't mean it's right.
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 03:32:02 PM
LMNO speaks truth.
Just because an emotional response is understandable doesn't mean it's right.
But just because a response is emotional, doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm not being contrary on this, just for the sake of it, I've been turning this over in my head all day. I accept that to respond with violence, is rarely the ''right'' solution, and I'm not a person who ever relies on violence to make a point. But I also don't subscribe to the platitude that "violence is never the answer". It all too often is the answer. Not the best answer, or even a good one, but sometimes it is the only answer a person is able to come up with.
I know, "Then a person should look harder". But we are a violent species, and to try to suppress this, either personally, or culturally, leads to all kinds of aberrant behaviour, from emo cutting, to all out Superpower confrontation. I just think it's better to have a few more fat lips, and black eyes, than simmering resentments, factionalised communities, and Wars.
Quote from: BadBeast on November 16, 2010, 03:12:58 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 16, 2010, 02:36:45 PM
For instance what happened when the phelps croud showed up at cmic con and faced a parody of themselves in full cosplay glamour. It was glorious.
Well yeah, I agree that's even better, but that was an organised and pre-planned response.
My point, is that if any person or persons, were to turn up at a funeral, any funeral, and behave in the way that the WBC behave, and in reaction to this, the righteously outraged mourners, (Who are there after all, to bury a loved one) were to give the offending person / persons a good hiding, would that be wrong?
Put yourself in the position of one of the mourners. A very dear and beloved family member's life has been cut short, in some pointless tragedy. You are trying to get through the worst fucking day of your life, and put your loved one in the ground, and some people, who have no connection whatsoever with any of the mourners, or the deceased, show up, and behave like the WBC. And they will not shut up.
In response to this, yourself and 3 of the pallbearers approach these people, who are shouting horrible untrue allegations against your dead family member, telling you that they will burn forever in Hellfire, because God hates fags, or some other spiteful nasty shite. Outraged, In pain and righteous anger, you punch that fucker out. Have you behaved inappropriately, given the circumstances? Can you honestly say that if this happened, you would be the one in the wrong?
You've behaved appropriately. But you're going to jail, and Phelps is getting free press.
"Appropriate" is not always a winning strategy.
It's not that 'Violence is never the answer', it's that 'Violence is not the answer to words.'
If you are physically attacked, physically defend yourself. If you are emotionally or ideologically attacked, don't punch them in the face.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 06:16:49 PM
It's not that 'Violence is never the answer', it's that 'Violence is not the answer to words.'
If you are physically attacked, physically defend yourself. If you are emotionally or ideologically attacked, don't punch them in the face.
:clint:
(It had to be done.)
Quote from: BadBeast on November 16, 2010, 05:50:59 PM
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 03:32:02 PM
LMNO speaks truth.
Just because an emotional response is understandable doesn't mean it's right.
But just because a response is emotional, doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm not being contrary on this, just for the sake of it, I've been turning this over in my head all day. I accept that to respond with violence, is rarely the ''right'' solution, and I'm not a person who ever relies on violence to make a point. But I also don't subscribe to the platitude that "violence is never the answer". It all too often is the answer. Not the best answer, or even a good one, but sometimes it is the only answer a person is able to come up with.
I know, "Then a person should look harder". But we are a violent species, and to try to suppress this, either personally, or culturally, leads to all kinds of aberrant behaviour, from emo cutting, to all out Superpower confrontation. I just think it's better to have a few more fat lips, and black eyes, than simmering resentments, factionalised communities, and Wars.
This, personally, is my beef with the rest of humanity. I work every day at being a better human, and that usually entails not hitting people when I think they deserve it. What the hell do we have self-awareness for if we can't use it to better ourselves, instead of just existing and doing whatever pops in your head?
Quote from: BadBeast on November 16, 2010, 05:50:59 PM
I know, "Then a person should look harder". But we are a violent species, and to try to suppress this, either personally, or culturally, leads to all kinds of aberrant behaviour, from emo cutting, to all out Superpower confrontation. I just think it's better to have a few more fat lips, and black eyes, than simmering resentments, factionalised communities, and Wars.
Naturalistic fallacy. It also is natural to die of an infected toe.
How exactly does violence cause less strife than suppressing it?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2010, 05:54:10 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on November 16, 2010, 03:12:58 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 16, 2010, 02:36:45 PM
For instance what happened when the phelps croud showed up at cmic con and faced a parody of themselves in full cosplay glamour. It was glorious.
Well yeah, I agree that's even better, but that was an organised and pre-planned response.
My point, is that if any person or persons, were to turn up at a funeral, any funeral, and behave in the way that the WBC behave, and in reaction to this, the righteously outraged mourners, (Who are there after all, to bury a loved one) were to give the offending person / persons a good hiding, would that be wrong?
Put yourself in the position of one of the mourners. A very dear and beloved family member's life has been cut short, in some pointless tragedy. You are trying to get through the worst fucking day of your life, and put your loved one in the ground, and some people, who have no connection whatsoever with any of the mourners, or the deceased, show up, and behave like the WBC. And they will not shut up.
In response to this, yourself and 3 of the pallbearers approach these people, who are shouting horrible untrue allegations against your dead family member, telling you that they will burn forever in Hellfire, because God hates fags, or some other spiteful nasty shite. Outraged, In pain and righteous anger, you punch that fucker out. Have you behaved inappropriately, given the circumstances? Can you honestly say that if this happened, you would be the one in the wrong?
You've behaved appropriately. But you're going to jail, and Phelps is getting free press.
"Appropriate" is not always a winning strategy.
This.
Just because those horrible asstards deserve an ass-kicking doesn't mean that kicking their asses is the best long-term strategy.
That said, I also disagree with anyone who insists that violence is NEVER the answer, or that it should only be used to counter violence.
I mean, if I'm pretty sure that you're gonna punch me in the face sometime in the next 2 minutes, I'm gonna punch you first, law be damned.
It actually doesn't.
According to the latest research, war is not a natural human condition but spreads - rather like a disease - because....well, people who don't defend themselves by adopting warfare don't last very long in wars.
Therefore, unless the people you are attacking are pacifists, you're just setting up a greater conflict for when they form "self-defense" groups and start actively "defending" themselves by preemptively attacking others. And the other side reacts by doing the same and you enter the classic security dilemma which historically, among other things, ended up with forty years of warfare and corpses all over Ancient Greece.
I'm sure you know this Net, but I'm explicating in case anyone else didn't get the point.
Quote from: Subetai on November 16, 2010, 06:31:04 PM
I'm sure you know this Net, but I'm explicating in case anyone else didn't get the point.
Logically and on an instinctual level I agree, though I really need to flesh it out with more empirical knowledge.
I've been meaning to read "Guns, Germs and Steel" for a while now, so I can add more to this sort of conversation.
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 06:21:44 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on November 16, 2010, 05:50:59 PM
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 03:32:02 PM
LMNO speaks truth.
Just because an emotional response is understandable doesn't mean it's right.
But just because a response is emotional, doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm not being contrary on this, just for the sake of it, I've been turning this over in my head all day. I accept that to respond with violence, is rarely the ''right'' solution, and I'm not a person who ever relies on violence to make a point. But I also don't subscribe to the platitude that "violence is never the answer". It all too often is the answer. Not the best answer, or even a good one, but sometimes it is the only answer a person is able to come up with.
I know, "Then a person should look harder". But we are a violent species, and to try to suppress this, either personally, or culturally, leads to all kinds of aberrant behaviour, from emo cutting, to all out Superpower confrontation. I just think it's better to have a few more fat lips, and black eyes, than simmering resentments, factionalised communities, and Wars.
This, personally, is my beef with the rest of humanity. I work every day at being a better human, and that usually entails not hitting people when I think they deserve it. What the hell do we have self-awareness for if we can't use it to better ourselves, instead of just existing and doing whatever pops in your head?
I can certainly understand that. As for being a better human, I always wanted that for myself, but for a long time, however much I tried to achieve this, it was one step forward, two (or to my shame, three or even four steps back) So after a while, I lowered the bar for myself. Changed my objective to "Not being a worse human". And I know how much of a cop out that sounds, but it was achievable. And you know what? while I was trying not to be a worse human, I inadvertantly gave myself the breathing space to develop some self awareness. Which is what I had been lacking. Now, over 20 years later, I am an infinitely better human than I was. (even though I do say so myself) Self awareness is the fucking key, without which, there is not even the insight to see that you need to be better at anything. I found I had hidden qualities. That I'd hidden from myself.
And an equal amount of faults that I'd hidden even better. Probably still have a few to find yet, but that's ok, because I'm still getting to be an even better human. Maybe one day, I will become that rarest of things, "The Best of Men". I haven't completely written that off yet, as an ideal. And that's why I can maintain an optimistic outlook for the rest of you fuckers. Because I know that my species, is fucking awesome! Often are fucking awesome. And stupid. but that's OK, because lots of them are becoming better humans too.
Violence in reaction to words can be an acceptable reaction.
In your eyes.
Just don't expect others to agree with you.
Remember: those others are the ones who will be judging wether you acted in a way that deserves punishment.
So you can get violent if someone insults your grannie at her funeral, just dont expect to do so without getting a few bruises and/or spending some time in jail.
You can do whatever you want to, just don't expect to do so without consequences.
Quote from: Regret on November 16, 2010, 10:35:26 PM
Violence in reaction to words can be an acceptable reaction.
In your eyes.
Just don't expect others to agree with you.
Remember: those others are the ones who will be judging wether you acted in a way that deserves punishment.
So you can get violent if someone insults your grannie at her funeral, just dont expect to do so without getting a few bruises and/or spending some time in jail.
You can do whatever you want to, just don't expect to do so without consequences.
This is the exact same point I was trying to make to start with. Actions, and their consequences.
I am going to put into my will that when I die a hand written invitation, penned by myself, will be delivered to someone in the WBC, if they are still around, asking them to please attend my funeral. It will also include a list of my many sins.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 17, 2010, 02:27:40 AM
I am going to put into my will that when I die a hand written invitation, penned by myself, will be delivered to someone in the WBC, if they are still around, asking them to please attend my funeral. It will also include a list of my many sins.
Can I come along, and give them all a good
slap talking to?
I dunno, I'm not sure that harassing mourners is really best expressed as 'symbolic speech.'
I would think it would be 'harassment'.
But that's me.
Necrobumping for some news.
Surprise, surprise,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
the author was arrested.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on December 20, 2010, 08:32:43 PM
Necrobumping for some news.
Surprise, surprise,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
the author was arrested.
Well, there may in fact be justice in the world.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 20, 2010, 08:40:19 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on December 20, 2010, 08:32:43 PM
Necrobumping for some news.
Surprise, surprise,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
the author was arrested.
Well, there may in fact be justice in the world.
yeah, but apparently it has to be dealt out from Florida. :horrormirth:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 20, 2010, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 20, 2010, 08:40:19 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on December 20, 2010, 08:32:43 PM
Necrobumping for some news.
Surprise, surprise,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
the author was arrested.
Well, there may in fact be justice in the world.
yeah, but apparently it has to be dealt out from Florida. :horrormirth:
Minor details.
That's bullshit. Shouldn't the detectives that ordered the book be busted for buying illegal products, if that is the case? Since this is all currently on the theoretical crime level, aren't they just as "guilty"? Oh man, I love when people are busted for Thought Crime. No, wait, scratch that and reverse it... I don't love that.
He's gross, his book is (from what I have read) vile and reprehensible, but as I said before he should be allowed to write it and publish it, and people should be allowed to read it.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 20, 2010, 10:03:45 PM
That's bullshit. Shouldn't the detectives that ordered the book be busted for buying illegal products, if that is the case? Since this is all currently on the theoretical crime level, aren't they just as "guilty"? Oh man, I love when people are busted for Thought Crime. No, wait, scratch that and reverse it... I don't love that.
He's gross, his book is (from what I have read) vile and reprehensible, but as I said before he should be allowed to write it and publish it, and people should be allowed to read it.
In that case, he should be allowed to reap the consequences when someone decides their children would be safer with him swinging from a lamp post.
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 20, 2010, 10:03:45 PM
That's bullshit. Shouldn't the detectives that ordered the book be busted for buying illegal products, if that is the case? Since this is all currently on the theoretical crime level, aren't they just as "guilty"? Oh man, I love when people are busted for Thought Crime. No, wait, scratch that and reverse it... I don't love that.
He's gross, his book is (from what I have read) vile and reprehensible, but as I said before he should be allowed to write it and publish it, and people should be allowed to read it.
In that case, he should be allowed to reap the consequences when someone decides their children would be safer with him swinging from a lamp post.
:mittens:
I sat for a few minutes and tried to think of a good way to say what I thought about that post. You've done it better than it came out in my head.
Uh, sadly no.
Unless you're comfortable with allowing people to kill anyone who writes something that they disagree with.
LMNO
-why do you fuckers insist on saying stupid shit that leaves me having to defend other stupid shit?
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 20, 2010, 10:03:45 PM
That's bullshit. Shouldn't the detectives that ordered the book be busted for buying illegal products, if that is the case? Since this is all currently on the theoretical crime level, aren't they just as "guilty"? Oh man, I love when people are busted for Thought Crime. No, wait, scratch that and reverse it... I don't love that.
He's gross, his book is (from what I have read) vile and reprehensible, but as I said before he should be allowed to write it and publish it, and people should be allowed to read it.
In that case, he should be allowed to reap the consequences when someone decides their children would be safer with him swinging from a lamp post.
Are you serious?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 21, 2010, 03:09:24 PM
Uh, sadly no.
Unless you're comfortable with allowing people to kill anyone who writes something that they disagree with.
LMNO
-why do you fuckers insist on saying stupid shit that leaves me having to defend other stupid shit?
I'm torn on this one. On one hand I always protect freedom of speech, on the other hand this is a little like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Personally I am not comfortable with the author enabling sick people to hurt children. I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just track who purchased the book and keep an eye on them.
There are probably laws against "incitement" or to somehow advocate illegal acts (an overview of such a law is here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm)). Of course, it would be a difficult case to make, as well it should be.
However, I would prefer to see the book brought to trial this way than to use the obscenity laws.
Was the author/collator/whatever of the Anarchist Cookbook ever arrested for advocating or promoting domestic terrorism? Should he have been?
Look, as a father of two kids, I can assure you this guy is not on my list of winners. But LMNO and Hoops have it right. I don't think we should be in the business of meting out justice for thoughtcrime. They should be ridiculed and flogged publicly. They should be mocked mercilessly. They should be shunned and the scorn of society. But until they actually do something, they should be free men. That's how our justice system works. This isn't Minority Report.
Well, I also think it should be legal to yell fire in a crowded theatre, and to incite violence but not actually commit violence. But again, I'm admittedly a fucking nutball.
Busting this guy over this book seems like thought crime to me, and I don't see how someone can reasonably consider stringing him up as a justifiable act.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2010, 03:22:49 PMThey should be ridiculed and flogged publicly. They should be mocked mercilessly. They should be shunned and the scorn of society. But until they actually do something, they should be free men. That's how our justice system works. This isn't Minority Report.
Yes yes yes... this.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 21, 2010, 03:20:09 PM
There are probably laws against "incitement" or to somehow advocate illegal acts (an overview of such a law is here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm)). Of course, it would be a difficult case to make, as well it should be.
However, I would prefer to see the book brought to trial this way than to use the obscenity laws.
I agree. Using the obscenity laws ignores the intent of the book and spirals in a totally different direction that is unrelated.
Has the author ever been charged with pedophilia? Is the author a sex offender?
Well, I would if he did something to my kids. But if he's just walking down the street minding his own business, there's no need.
We have to keep in mind that the internet is only shining a flashlight on shit that's been around as long as mankind. We didn't get all worked up about it because we didn't know about it. Even with the internet, there are all kinds of people around us who have ideas we don't know about that we would consider sick, twisted, insane. I'm sure there is some soccer Mom somewhere who wants to go all Annie Wilkes on Justin Bieber.
http://www.howtodothings.com/hobbies/how-to-commit-a-perfect-murder
Was this author arrested?
I doubt it. Violence is celebrated in this culture.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 21, 2010, 03:34:51 PM
I doubt it. Violence is celebrated in this culture.
Not by me.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2010, 03:22:49 PM
Was the author/collator/whatever of the Anarchist Cookbook ever arrested for advocating or promoting domestic terrorism? Should he have been?
Look, as a father of two kids, I can assure you this guy is not on my list of winners. But LMNO and Hoops have it right. I don't think we should be in the business of meting out justice for thoughtcrime. They should be ridiculed and flogged publicly. They should be mocked mercilessly. They should be shunned and the scorn of society. But until they actually do something, they should be free men. That's how our justice system works. This isn't Minority Report.
damnit. now your causing me to question my gut instinct with regards to anyone who writes about and advocates molesting children.
I agree, until they actually act on it, they should be free.
but something in my head tweaks a little when I hear that it's perfectly legal to write a book teaching other people how to fuck children and not get caught. If ever there should be a taboo, if ever there was a very thick black line that should not be crossed, I would think that would be it.
It turns my stomach and so yeah, my reaction is based in the emotion it causes.
I will say this: I am perfectly ok with someone putting a red flag on this guy. I mean, how a person behaves influences my opinion of them.
So, if a guy writes a how-to book on pedophilia, I will naturally assume that this guy has pedophilic tendencies, whether or not he acts on them (until evidence suggests otherwise-- he wrote a very convincing psychopath, but I don't think Easton Ellis is one).
To sum up: He shouldn't be arrested, and shouldn't be killed; but I've got my eye on you, pal.
Yeah, I'm cool with that.
Yeah this kind of thing is best decided and acted upon by the court of public opinion. Not an actual court of laws. Laws aren't particularly good at herding morality or changing human behavior.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 21, 2010, 03:34:51 PM
I doubt it. Violence is celebrated in this culture.
Not by me either. And my original response was carefully worded to reflect this. I didn't say "He should be strung up from a lamp post", or condone the act in any way. Only that this man should be allowed to reap any consequences of publishing such a morally reprehensible document. It's not like he was ignorant of the way people feel about their children, or the outrageous nature of the material. He did this knowing that the Law, at least, protected him. But Laws are sometimes wrong. That's why they are constantly being amended, and updated. Freedom of Speech is a fine thing. But there are consequences to saying, or (in this case) publishing stupid outrageous, and depraved shit. The
acknowledgment of this should be reflected in the Legislation. What this man did is an outrage. Offensive, inflammatory, and reprehensible. If someone followed his advice, and used the information published in the book on YOUR Children, then how much would his Constitutional right to free speech affect your reaction then? (They are all "our" Children)
You mean, if a pedophile, who is not the author of the book, did something to a future son or daughter of mine?
Then we convict the pedophile, and see if we can use incitement laws to go after the author. Is this really so difficult a question?
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 04:25:28 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 21, 2010, 03:34:51 PM
I doubt it. Violence is celebrated in this culture.
Not by me either. And my original response was carefully worded to reflect this. I didn't say "He should be strung up from a lamp post", or condone the act in any way. Only that this man should be allowed to reap any consequences of publishing such a morally reprehensible document. It's not like he was ignorant of the way people feel about their children, or the outrageous nature of the material. He did this knowing that the Law, at least, protected him. But Laws are sometimes wrong. That's why they are constantly being amended, and updated. Freedom of Speech is a fine thing. But there are consequences to saying, or (in this case) publishing stupid outrageous, and depraved shit. The
acknowledgment of this should be reflected in the Legislation. What this man did is an outrage. Offensive, inflammatory, and reprehensible. If someone followed his advice, and used the information published in the book on YOUR Children, then how much would his Constitutional right to free speech affect your reaction then? (They are all "our" Children)
1. Not illegal
2. Knee-jerk reactions to suppress rights are even more wrong. (see The Patriot Act, etc.)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 21, 2010, 04:00:15 PM
I will say this: I am perfectly ok with someone putting a red flag on this guy. I mean, how a person behaves influences my opinion of them.
So, if a guy writes a how-to book on pedophilia, I will naturally assume that this guy has pedophilic tendencies, whether or not he acts on them (until evidence suggests otherwise-- he wrote a very convincing psychopath, but I don't think Easton Ellis is one).
To sum up: He shouldn't be arrested, and shouldn't be killed; but I've got my eye on you, pal.
THIS. Because I'd rather live in a society that allows this person to think and live freely as long as he's not directly causing harm himself. Thinking bad thoughts and writing about them in public is NOT one of those harms. No matter what the thought police would have you believe.
Upshot: Florida cheated. And fuck them for using children to promote their police state morals as well.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2010, 04:08:34 PM
Yeah this kind of thing is best decided and acted upon by the court of public opinion. Not an actual court of laws. Laws aren't particularly good at herding morality or changing human behavior.
For shame! You really think the PUBLIC is SMART enough to police themselves on these matters! We can't think for ourselves! /sarcasm, drip drip
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 21, 2010, 03:22:49 PM
Was the author/collator/whatever of the Anarchist Cookbook ever arrested for advocating or promoting domestic terrorism?
Given the alleged author was the son of a US Senator, I'm going to go with "hahahaha no".
Quote from: Jenne on December 21, 2010, 04:32:33 PM
Upshot: Florida cheated. And fuck them for using children to promote their police state morals as well.
Yes they did. And I find it amusing that in that article they are actually proud of their behavior... they pretty much said "The rest of the country may believe in freedom, but we don't."
Ugh.
Books are not crimes. This is non-negotiable in a free society.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 21, 2010, 04:41:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 21, 2010, 04:32:33 PM
Upshot: Florida cheated. And fuck them for using children to promote their police state morals as well.
Yes they did. And I find it amusing that in that article they are actually proud of their behavior... they pretty much said "The rest of the country may believe in freedom, but we don't."
Of course they are--they are the RIGHTEOUSLY JUSTIFIED.
/spits
Well, Twilight should probably be considered a crime. And Org's Odyssey.
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2010, 05:05:59 PM
Well, Twilight should probably be considered a crime. And Org's Odyssey.
:lulz: Smartass.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 05:04:20 PM
Ugh.
Books are not crimes. This is non-negotiable in a free society.
Hm, there's your problem RIGHT THERE.
sure is libertarian ITT
:facepalm:
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
"Libertarians" do not hold the majority on subjecting doubt and ridicule upon those who would take civil liberties away in the name of so-called safety. I personally have railed time and again against it (probably not lately, even I get tired of my own schtick).
The thing is, the state of Florida will get away with this dick-move, because the PEOPLE will let them. (well, it's America's wang, anyway) Mostly because this is a guy no one wants to live next to, everyone fears. Why not subjugate him to this kind of treatment? Not like he's ONE OF US, is it?
The movie "Little Children" comes to mind...
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
Congratulations, your fail hit a perfect 10.
Morality cannot be legislated.
Free people have always understood the importance of the unfettered word.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
BECAUSE ONLY LIBERTARIANS GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FREE EXPRESSION.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
REMEMBER, KIDS! THOMAS JEFFERSON AND JAMES MADISON WERE CARD-CARRYING LIBERTARIANTARDS!
:mrh:
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:34:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
Congratulations, your fail hit a perfect 10.
Morality cannot be legislated.
Free people have always understood the importance of the unfettered word.
uh hu. yeah, I'm well aware of that fact.
hasn't stopped people from trying for centuries.
Personally, I find myself agreeing after my initial emotional reaction. Like LMNO said, shine a spotlight on the guy and if he acts on it, stick him in gen pop. I hear pedophiles get on real well in prison.
you know, I'm not sure I understand where any of that was fail but hey, whatever.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 05:38:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
BECAUSE ONLY LIBERTARIANS GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FREE EXPRESSION.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
also not what I said.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 05:38:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
BECAUSE ONLY LIBERTARIANS GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FREE EXPRESSION.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
also not what I said.
It's exactly what you said. People were defending free expression, and you called that libertarianism.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 05:48:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 05:38:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
BECAUSE ONLY LIBERTARIANS GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FREE EXPRESSION.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
also not what I said.
It's exactly what you said. People were defending free expression, and you called that libertarianism.
jesus fucking christ.
obviously you can defend freedom of expression without subscribing to the entirety of libertarian thought on freedom of expression.
I said that the comments are in line with the sort I can find on libertarian forums about censorship.
OF COURSE THE PEOPLE ON THOSE FORUMS DON'T HOLD THE PATENT ON DEFENDING EXPRESSION.
chill the fuck out FFS. Is it going to be a goddamn ordeal with you all of the time?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 05:48:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 05:38:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
BECAUSE ONLY LIBERTARIANS GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FREE EXPRESSION.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
also not what I said.
It's exactly what you said. People were defending free expression, and you called that libertarianism.
jesus fucking christ.
obviously you can defend freedom of expression without subscribing to the entirety of libertarian thought on freedom of expression.
I said that the comments are in line with the sort I can find on libertarian forums about censorship.
OF COURSE THE PEOPLE ON THOSE FORUMS DON'T HOLD THE PATENT ON DEFENDING EXPRESSION.
chill the fuck out FFS. Is it going to be a goddamn ordeal with you all of the time?
Your comment came across as snarky and full of self justification. This is PD, what reaction did you expect?
then I'll work on my delivery.
or maybe just lurk moar.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 05:48:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 05:38:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Care to back that up?
the sorts of comments I might read on any number of libertarian forums.
anti-thought police, freedom to do and write what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to another person.
not banning books because of their content, and not stretching laws across state lines in order to facilitate the legislation of morality.
being against the legislation of morality in general.
I didn't mean libertarian party, but libertarian positions on law and censorship.
BECAUSE ONLY LIBERTARIANS GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FREE EXPRESSION.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
also not what I said.
It's exactly what you said. People were defending free expression, and you called that libertarianism.
jesus fucking christ.
obviously you can defend freedom of expression without subscribing to the entirety of libertarian thought on freedom of expression.
I said that the comments are in line with the sort I can find on libertarian forums about censorship.
OF COURSE THE PEOPLE ON THOSE FORUMS DON'T HOLD THE PATENT ON DEFENDING EXPRESSION.
chill the fuck out FFS. Is it going to be a goddamn ordeal with you all of the time?
What you SAID was "libertarianism ITT".
You're looking at it backwards. Libertarians are a subgroup of "those who value free expression", not the other way around.
And yeah, it's always a Goddamn ordeal with me. Or so my kids, my boss, and all my ex-wives tell me. I'm a horrible cunt, and can't be relied upon to be civil, even at wakes and weddings. It's a personal failing, I am told, but Oscar Wilde has justified my position on this sort of thing.
"Any man who never gets carried away,
should be."
Besides, I'm one of the more easy-going Holy Men™. Elijah, for example, was prone to stabbing bystanders as a means of driving his point home. Count your lucky stars, sir.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 06:01:43 PM
then I'll work on my delivery.
or maybe just lurk moar.
Or just Kill a Motherfucker. It always works for me.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 03:54:59 PM
damnit. now your causing me to question my gut instinct
Welcome to Discordia.
Suddenly I feel safer for being a grandmother fucker.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 06:14:17 PM
Suddenly I feel safer for being a grandmother fucker.
Yuk! TMI.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Ok. Allow me to diagram.
Majority of actions in this thread: People denouncing pedophelia while also denouncing thoughtcrime.
General tenor of these actions: This is a matter of rights, not politics. Thoughts and behaviors are distinct.
Your four word comment: Declares the majority of actions in this thread to be motivated by the political philosophy of Libertarianism, or that the actions were motivated by Libertarianism whether the posters knew it or not.
PLEASE NOTE: It doesn't matter in the slightest what you
meant to say. The way you posted those four words were the entirety of the message. Furthermore, if we look at your posting history to perhaps put your four word comment into context, then it becomes even clearer that you advocate the Libertarian position, and emphasizes the initial reaction to your four word post even further.
Perhaps you meant that the tenor of the thread is also often reflected in a libertarian mindset, and perhaps the philosopy of the Libertarian is not so far removed from the one shown in this thread. Perhaps you intended a nuanced analysis, comparing and contrasting Libertarianism with the loose assortment of principles espoused on PD.com.
Well, if you did, it's gonna take a SHIT-TON MORE THAN FOUR FUCKING WORDS to do so.
In advance, you're welcome.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why we call LMNO the chairman of the board. :lol:
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 06:36:16 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 06:14:17 PM
Suddenly I feel safer for being a grandmother fucker.
Yuk! TMI.
Yuk? Hell no, she's a hottie, and my wife.
(http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu264/HawkShadowsoul/31658_401702585431_701145431_457104.jpg)
Ignore me in the pic, that was the same year I died 3 times.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 06:54:45 PM
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why we call LMNO the chairman of the board. :lol:
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 06:54:45 PM
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why we call LMNO the chairman of the board. :lol:
I didn't before, but I will now.
:thanks:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 21, 2010, 06:53:38 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 21, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
sure is libertarian ITT
Ok. Allow me to diagram.
Majority of actions in this thread: People denouncing pedophelia while also denouncing thoughtcrime.
General tenor of these actions: This is a matter of rights, not politics. Thoughts and behaviors are distinct.
Your four word comment: Declares the majority of actions in this thread to be motivated by the political philosophy of Libertarianism, or that the actions were motivated by Libertarianism whether the posters knew it or not.
PLEASE NOTE: It doesn't matter in the slightest what you meant to say. The way you posted those four words were the entirety of the message. Furthermore, if we look at your posting history to perhaps put your four word comment into context, then it becomes even clearer that you advocate the Libertarian position, and emphasizes the initial reaction to your four word post even further.
Perhaps you meant that the tenor of the thread is also often reflected in a libertarian mindset, and perhaps the philosopy of the Libertarian is not so far removed from the one shown in this thread. Perhaps you intended a nuanced analysis, comparing and contrasting Libertarianism with the loose assortment of principles espoused on PD.com.
Well, if you did, it's gonna take a SHIT-TON MORE THAN FOUR FUCKING WORDS to do so.
In advance, you're welcome.
thanks, and noted.
Would probably be more wordy if i wasn't also bouncing back and forth between here and drafting.
Protip: If you can't address an issue properly, it's perfectly ok not to click "post".
intended message and audience interpretation, a subject of MANY papers in applied linguistics...
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
Sarcastic comments? That's a bit out of character for you, isn't it? :lulz:
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 08:17:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
Sarcastic comments? That's a bit out of character for you, isn't it? :lulz:
I am most certainly never sarcastic, good sir. I thought I would try my hand at this new form of humor that's all the rage among you kids. The results were most promising.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 08:20:42 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 08:17:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
Sarcastic comments? That's a bit out of character for you, isn't it? :lulz:
I am most certainly never sarcastic, good sir. I thought I would try my hand at this new form of humor that's all the rage among you kids. The results were most promising.
Noted. But what passes for humour here is probably not representative of the species as a whole. (It works for me though)
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
W00t Phox Orgy!!!!!
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:32:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
W00t Phox Orgy!!!!!
.. I think I can support this idea.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:32:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
W00t Phox Orgy!!!!!
.. I think I can support this idea.
HOT DAMN! I'll go start the air compressor!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 09:37:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:32:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
W00t Phox Orgy!!!!!
.. I think I can support this idea.
HOT DAMN! I'll go start the air compressor!
I like where this is going already.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 09:37:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:32:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
W00t Phox Orgy!!!!!
.. I think I can support this idea.
HOT DAMN! I'll go start the air compressor!
We can attach it to this 5 gallon bucket of cheese whiz!!!!
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:40:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 09:37:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:32:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
W00t Phox Orgy!!!!!
.. I think I can support this idea.
HOT DAMN! I'll go start the air compressor!
We can attach it to this 5 gallon bucket of cheese whiz!!!!
Gonna need another crotchless wetsuit, I think.
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 08:28:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 08:20:42 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 08:17:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
Sarcastic comments? That's a bit out of character for you, isn't it? :lulz:
I am most certainly never sarcastic, good sir. I thought I would try my hand at this new form of humor that's all the rage among you kids. The results were most promising.
Noted. But what passes for humour here is probably not representative of the species as a whole. (It works for me though)
See post #194 asswipe. I'll teach you to not insult my wife.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 08:28:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 08:20:42 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 08:17:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
Sarcastic comments? That's a bit out of character for you, isn't it? :lulz:
I am most certainly never sarcastic, good sir. I thought I would try my hand at this new form of humor that's all the rage among you kids. The results were most promising.
Noted. But what passes for humour here is probably not representative of the species as a whole. (It works for me though)
See post #194 asswipe. I'll teach you to not insult my wife.
I'm sorry Hawk, when you said "Grandmother" I thought you meant your own Grandmother! Which is an awful wrongness. Please forward my apologies to your good lady Wife.
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 11:20:18 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 21, 2010, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 08:28:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 08:20:42 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 21, 2010, 08:17:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Well, good lord, that certainly exploded. Jeez, I make one sarcastic comment and boom, we get an orgy of... something... I should make more sarcastic comments, I think.
Sarcastic comments? That's a bit out of character for you, isn't it? :lulz:
I am most certainly never sarcastic, good sir. I thought I would try my hand at this new form of humor that's all the rage among you kids. The results were most promising.
Noted. But what passes for humour here is probably not representative of the species as a whole. (It works for me though)
See post #194 asswipe. I'll teach you to not insult my wife.
I'm sorry Hawk, when you said "Grandmother" I thought you meant your own Grandmother! Which is an awful wrongness. Please forward my apologies to your good lady Wife.
Chill, I was kidding. My parents and grandparents are all dead. Thanks for reminding me. :cry:
Ahm chilled Buddy. I don't care what everyone else thinks, I never really thought you had sex with your Grandmother. :roll:
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
Quote from: ϗ on December 21, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
:lulz:
Here and now seems like a good plan.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: ϗ on December 21, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
:lulz:
Here and now seems like a good plan.
Where is "here"? I can't find it on Google Maps.
Quote from: ϗ on December 22, 2010, 12:00:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: ϗ on December 21, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
:lulz:
Here and now seems like a good plan.
Where is "here"? I can't find it on Google Maps.
This conversation just went to PM. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:01:22 AM
Quote from: ϗ on December 22, 2010, 12:00:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: ϗ on December 21, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
:lulz:
Here and now seems like a good plan.
Where is "here"? I can't find it on Google Maps.
This conversation just went to PM. :lulz:
Shit! BadBeast too late, as usual! :sad:
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 12:29:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:01:22 AM
Quote from: ϗ on December 22, 2010, 12:00:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: ϗ on December 21, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
:lulz:
Here and now seems like a good plan.
Where is "here"? I can't find it on Google Maps.
This conversation just went to PM. :lulz:
Shit! BadBeast too late, as usual! :sad:
:wink:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:30:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 12:29:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:01:22 AM
Quote from: ϗ on December 22, 2010, 12:00:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: ϗ on December 21, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
:lulz:
Here and now seems like a good plan.
Where is "here"? I can't find it on Google Maps.
This conversation just went to PM. :lulz:
Shit! BadBeast too late, as usual! :sad:
:wink:
Imagination is surely a wonderful thing! :fap:
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 12:32:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:30:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 12:29:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:01:22 AM
Quote from: ϗ on December 22, 2010, 12:00:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: ϗ on December 21, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
:lulz:
Here and now seems like a good plan.
Where is "here"? I can't find it on Google Maps.
This conversation just went to PM. :lulz:
Shit! BadBeast too late, as usual! :sad:
:wink:
Imagination is surely a wonderful thing! :fap:
Imagination doesn't exist, BB. Only ADVANCED VISUALIZATION OF THE REALLY FOR REAL FUTURE! ... :oops:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:33:56 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 12:32:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:30:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 12:29:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:01:22 AM
Quote from: ϗ on December 22, 2010, 12:00:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: ϗ on December 21, 2010, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
Hokay, now that that's been resolved let's go back to having an orgy with me, shall we? So far there's been nothing spittake worthy here.
Just give me a time and place, darlin'.
:lulz:
Here and now seems like a good plan.
Where is "here"? I can't find it on Google Maps.
This conversation just went to PM. :lulz:
Shit! BadBeast too late, as usual! :sad:
:wink:
Imagination is surely a wonderful thing! :fap:
Imagination doesn't exist, BB. Only ADVANCED VISUALIZATION OF THE REALLY FOR REAL FUTURE! ... :oops:
Of course, I was forgetting my advanced Mahjickal trayningz!
Mirror mirror on teh wall, who's the Baddest Beast of all?
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 12:37:55 AM
Mirror mirror on teh wall, who's the Baddest Beast of all?
Not a poser who would put it as his name, obviously. :wink:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: ϗ on December 22, 2010, 12:45:58 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 12:37:55 AM
Mirror mirror on teh wall, who's the Baddest Beast of all?
Not a poser who would put it as his name, obviously. :wink:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 12:47:01 AM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Haarumph! I've had it with you lot! I'm going to TCC, where Mahgikal Mirrors actually
mean something! :argh!: :lulz:
She's tired anyway, I just bonked her 3 times on the ass trail plane.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 12:59:51 AM
She's tired anyway, I just bonked her 3 times on the ass trail plane.
That doesn't make sense no matter what part of the conversation I try to put it in. Or rather,
it does. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 01:01:35 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 12:59:51 AM
She's tired anyway, I just bonked her 3 times on the ass trail plane.
That doesn't make sense no matter what part of the conversation I try to put it in. Or rather, it does. :lulz:
:lulz:
Bare with me, my dear.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 01:04:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 01:01:35 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 12:59:51 AM
She's tired anyway, I just bonked her 3 times on the ass trail plane.
That doesn't make sense no matter what part of the conversation I try to put it in. Or rather, it does. :lulz:
:lulz:
Bare with me, my dear.
:lulz:
(http://i.imgur.com/IH2WL.jpg)