Before You Buy Anything Else From Amazon, Read This...

[Tero]

Can I carry on using Amazon just until I've bought the whole adrian mole series? My son is rather enjoying them.

Books? Or was there a tv show too? I think I read all the books.

[Gallstones]

Shouldn't it be more honestly titled "The Pedophile's Guide to Rape and Pleasure: a Child-rapist's Code of Conduct"

We have to be PC

As opposed to Mac? What's one's choice of operating system got to do with anything?

[Gallstones]

As long as they share the details of who buys it with the authorities I think it should stay there

Uhm, how about no fucking way?
In the US that would be considered entrapment and would be illegal.

[Warren Dew]

In the US that would be considered entrapment and would be illegal.

I'd like to believe that, but it seems a lot of things that look to me like entrapment are standard procedure now - for example, the police pretending to be a terrorist group to try to get someone to agree to helping with a terrorist plot.

[Warren Dew]

Shouldn't it be more honestly titled "The Pedophile's Guide to Rape and Pleasure: a Child-rapist's Code of Conduct"

The author was apparently the younger half of a pedophilic relationship, so he might not see it that way. You know how kids are sometimes under the delusion that they have free will just like adults do.

[lordpasternack]

Shouldn't it be more honestly titled "The Pedophile's Guide to Rape and Pleasure: a Child-rapist's Code of Conduct"

Well, I couldn't say personally, given that I haven't read the contents of the book. For all you know it could well discourage any penetrative acts in the strongest of terms. So then it would be just molestation and assault - even where the contact may in fact be indeed benign, and the minor not ostensibly harmed in any way.

There is always a bit of side-discussion about human sexuality and ages of consent that tends to get thrown up by these types of discussion - and there's the recurrent theme about a kind of adult maturity that can be seen to be reached at some point, where one is pretty much mentally mature enough to understand the playing field of sex and sexuality enough to have a healthy sexual relationship with virtually any other consenting adult. Hence, I can go shag guys old enough to be my father if I want - guys like yourself - and nobody bats too much of an eyelid, because despite the age difference, I'm a big girl myself now, and clearly physically mature and capable of handling myself. Whereas, five to ten years ago, that same age difference would have been a bit more significant, down my end. And in 12 or so years' time my nephew, whom I foresee maturing into a total lecher, may find himself a nice MILF from my generation to share good times with - and all is still well in the world, because they're all adults then...

Having assumed that you agree to this basic overall premise - I think there should be some thoughts spent on the less clear scenarios - and perhaps then getting down to what we actually mean by "consent" and the "ability" to consent - and why one even requires an ability to consent - to sexual activities per se, what makes any sexual interactions abusive, and why there is a blanket ban on certain interactions involving minors and significantly older parties.

In these types of discussions, I've seen lots of people throw around the phrase "consenting adults", invoke age of consent laws/principles, and occasionally make vague hums and haws about how the law doesn't prevent children from "experimenting" between themselves (so "between consenting children" is also popularly kosher), and yet never actually go to the bother of looking all that closely at their visceral, instinctive premises to work out if, and more importantly why they are rationally consistent and defensible principles to hold. I have thought, or at least tried to think, quite deeply and rationally about this general subject. I'm sure if I leave it to you guys, you would draw similar conclusions. I've stated a few principles in posts around the forum in the past. I can't be bothered to fish them out right at this moment, and it's late, and I'm tired. So I'll just leave this basic debate fodder for anyone to pick up in the meantime.

Oh - and there was of course those times where I was 9 and involved with a 12-year-old boy, and then 10 with another 13-year-old boy. Not exactly scandalous by anyone's standard's - and they both of course involved two legal minors - but particularly in the case of the 13-year-old, well, he was a reproductive adolescent and I wasn't, frankly. Was there a significant imbalance of power? Was he taking advantage? Was he paedophilic in some slight way? Was I being abused/molested? To be perfectly honest with you, I still haven't a fucking clue why he homed in on me (he was a friend's older brother) - but my basic bottom line is that I never felt, and still don't feel, that I was abused at any stage.

In fact he was mostly chivalry itself - no matter how many times I counter that by wondering what the hell he was doing messing around with a 10-year-old. I - well, I enjoyed it. I always remember it fondly, until I get to the inconvenient pondering of the age difference. He had a bit of an upper hand in power and mental development even though we were both legally kids, and there was clear potential for abuse there - but I just have to conclude that it was a potential that was never realised. How would you comment on that, generally, if you were to, and how it might apply in some small way to this general vein of discussion?

[sandinista]

In the US that would be considered entrapment and would be illegal.

I'd like to believe that, but it seems a lot of things that look to me like entrapment are standard procedure now - for example, the police pretending to be a terrorist group to try to get someone to agree to helping with a terrorist plot.

In canaduh for sure, other places most likely as well, we got pigs running around like 'activists" trying to stir shit up in order to arrest people. Entrapment is common place now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx5 ... re=related[/youtube]

same shit happened at Toronto. Pigs are liars.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJ7aU-n ... re=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r-6cnGk ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[JimC]

Personally I think any book promoting pedophilia should be banned and the author prosecuted.

It's not censorship its dealing with a vile and insidious crime that ruins peoples lives.

Ah, writing words is a crime now.

Yes, that would be exactly censorship.

As usual, it depends...

If it were a book describing pedophilia, or "My life as a pedophile", or even some form of argument (however distasteful) that pedophilia is not as bad as it was painted, that's one thing, and, reluctantly, I concede to the anti-censorship argument.

However, if it actively encouraged people to engage in pedophilia, particularly on techniques of "grooming" children, then I would argue it has crossed a line into actively enabling harm to others, and should be stomped on.

[GreyICE]

As usual, it depends...

If it were a book describing pedophilia, or "My life as a pedophile", or even some form of argument (however distasteful) that pedophilia is not as bad as it was painted, that's one thing, and, reluctantly, I concede to the anti-censorship argument.

However, if it actively encouraged people to engage in pedophilia, particularly on techniques of "grooming" children, then I would argue it has crossed a line into actively enabling harm to others, and should be stomped on.

If a book describes techniques pedophiles use to groom children, is it allowed? Well, suppose it is a manual for the police and teachers. To educate them on how pedophiles work and signs to look for.

Oh, now suddenly it's allowed. I bet that's what you just thought. Guess what? You are now censoring work based on "tone." Well that's fucking bullshit, your 'factual' standard is just poorly thought out nonsense. Like most censorship, really.

[JimC]

As usual, it depends...

If it were a book describing pedophilia, or "My life as a pedophile", or even some form of argument (however distasteful) that pedophilia is not as bad as it was painted, that's one thing, and, reluctantly, I concede to the anti-censorship argument.

However, if it actively encouraged people to engage in pedophilia, particularly on techniques of "grooming" children, then I would argue it has crossed a line into actively enabling harm to others, and should be stomped on.

If a book describes techniques pedophiles use to groom children, is it allowed? Well, suppose it is a manual for the police and teachers. To educate them on how pedophiles work and signs to look for.

Oh, now suddenly it's allowed. I bet that's what you just thought. Guess what? You are now censoring work based on "tone." Well that's fucking bullshit, your 'factual' standard is just poorly thought out nonsense. Like most censorship, really.

Well, as a manual for police (not sure about teachers... ), it may have its uses. However, that does not mean it should necessarily be allowed in the public domain...

Generally, there would be very few books/articles that I might argue should be censored, but I'm not prepared to take an absolutist stance (so common to the far left or far right), and say there are no circumstances in which censorship may be justified.

And I rather think I was suggesting something a lot more subtle than a "factual standard"

But I forgot, subtlety is not a characteristic understood by the extremes of politics...

[GreyICE]

Well, as a manual for police (not sure about teachers... ), it may have its uses. However, that does not mean it should necessarily be allowed in the public domain...

Generally, there would be very few books/articles that I might argue should be censored, but I'm not prepared to take an absolutist stance (so common to the far left or far right), and say there are no circumstances in which censorship may be justified.

And I rather think I was suggesting something a lot more subtle than a "factual standard"

But I forgot, subtlety is not a characteristic understood by the extremes of politics...

Oh no, don't subtly suggest I'm an extremist. I do understand your little jabs. I'm a realist, and I understand how laws work. And here's the truth about them: you don't get to control them.

Capiche? Once you give the government a power, you don't get to say how they use it. Want an objective standard? Imminent lawless action is a well-understood standard that can be laid down in a simple manner. Want a standard where you can differentiate how to look for signs of child abuse from how to disguise signs of child abuse? Then someone else gets to use it however they like. You've given them a powerful and subtle tool, and crossed your fingers and hoped that they don't do the wrong thing with it.

Excuse me if I don't think "just pray" is a good strategy for ANYTHING, nevermind "limiting government abuse of authority."

Your assumption that everyone must think exactly like you and would act exactly as you would act is hopelessly naive.

[sandinista]

Well, as a manual for police (not sure about teachers... ), it may have its uses. However, that does not mean it should necessarily be allowed in the public domain...

Generally, there would be very few books/articles that I might argue should be censored, but I'm not prepared to take an absolutist stance (so common to the far left or far right), and say there are no circumstances in which censorship may be justified.

And I rather think I was suggesting something a lot more subtle than a "factual standard"

But I forgot, subtlety is not a characteristic understood by the extremes of politics...

Oh no, don't subtly suggest I'm an extremist. I do understand your little jabs. I'm a realist, and I understand how laws work. And here's the truth about them: you don't get to control them.

Capiche? Once you give the government a power, you don't get to say how they use it. Want an objective standard? Imminent lawless action is a well-understood standard that can be laid down in a simple manner. Want a standard where you can differentiate how to look for signs of child abuse from how to disguise signs of child abuse? Then someone else gets to use it however they like. You've given them a powerful and subtle tool, and crossed your fingers and hoped that they don't do the wrong thing with it.

Excuse me if I don't think "just pray" is a good strategy for ANYTHING, nevermind "limiting government abuse of authority."

Your assumption that everyone must think exactly like you and would act exactly as you would act is hopelessly naive.

GreyICE, common place around here is to label anyone a poster doesn't agree with an "extremist". Don't think too much about it. Kind of surprised to see it coming from JimC though.

[JimC]

Well, as a manual for police (not sure about teachers... ), it may have its uses. However, that does not mean it should necessarily be allowed in the public domain...

Generally, there would be very few books/articles that I might argue should be censored, but I'm not prepared to take an absolutist stance (so common to the far left or far right), and say there are no circumstances in which censorship may be justified.

And I rather think I was suggesting something a lot more subtle than a "factual standard"

But I forgot, subtlety is not a characteristic understood by the extremes of politics...

Oh no, don't subtly suggest I'm an extremist. I do understand your little jabs. I'm a realist, and I understand how laws work. And here's the truth about them: you don't get to control them.

Capiche? Once you give the government a power, you don't get to say how they use it. Want an objective standard? Imminent lawless action is a well-understood standard that can be laid down in a simple manner. Want a standard where you can differentiate how to look for signs of child abuse from how to disguise signs of child abuse? Then someone else gets to use it however they like. You've given them a powerful and subtle tool, and crossed your fingers and hoped that they don't do the wrong thing with it.

Excuse me if I don't think "just pray" is a good strategy for ANYTHING, nevermind "limiting government abuse of authority."

Your assumption that everyone must think exactly like you and would act exactly as you would act is hopelessly naive.

For a start, I agree that any form of censorship risks allowing the authority that does the censorship to move further than anticipated. However, I don't go from there to an absolutist doctrine that censorship should never happen in any circumstances. For a start, it is staggeringly unrealistic - some form of censorship exists in all societies (and I would agree that in some, perhaps many cases, it goes too far...). IMO, the left never appreciates how carefully constructed rules, admministered by an independent authority with ultimate oversight by a free press can effectively reflect the wishes of the public...

As for the "just pray", where the fuck did that come from? I've been an atheist longer than you've been alive...

As for the last sentence, absolute drivel,; not implied anywhere in my post, which basically is only saying that generally censorship should be avoided, but remains a possible tool for society in extreme cases...

[GreyICE]

For a start, I agree that any form of censorship risks allowing the authority that does the censorship to move further than anticipated. However, I don't go from there to an absolutist doctrine that censorship should never happen in any circumstances. For a start, it is staggeringly unrealistic - some form of censorship exists in all societies (and I would agree that in some, perhaps many cases, it goes too far...). IMO, the left never appreciates how carefully constructed rules, admministered by an independent authority with ultimate oversight by a free press can effectively reflect the wishes of the public...

As for the "just pray", where the fuck did that come from? I've been an atheist longer than you've been alive...

As for the last sentence, absolute drivel,; not implied anywhere in my post, which basically is only saying that generally censorship should be avoided, but remains a possible tool for society in extreme cases...

Aww, you don't like people making snap judgments about how you are thinking? It's no fun when the shoe is on the other foot? Must suck.

Now, you'll note I referenced the "imminent lawless action" standard of censorship, which I think we all agree is reasonable. So lets move beyond the infantile "NO RULES MAN!" that someone seems to be stuck arguing against.

And let us move to the idea that the government can establish carefully constructed rules with oversight by a free press to reach... I can't even finish. On what planet does the press act responsibly, the government act reasonably, and everyone not run around like chickens with their heads cut off to grab screen time on the latest controversy? That sort of dumbass thinking drove the Comic Code, drove the morality panics that lead to things like the Scarlet Letter and Ulysses getting banned, lead to the current drive to ban video games (which is going over oh so well in the Supreme Court recently).

[Gallstones]

If it was tagged as fiction would there be less controversy?
Lolita anyone?

I buy all my books and music and many other things from Amazon. I am going to continue to do so.