[Lightman]

Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't see how you can rationally conclude that killing pedophiles is the correct course of action. I don't like them either but if we kill them then who are we going to put in prison? And does it matter what kind of sex offender? Assuming it's the classic definition of pedophile then they are a child molester, why not petition to keep them in prison so they never get out? Or make them live in a pedophile city?

You aren't asking me a coherent question. You're making a series of assertions (and the last one is really a ridiculous assertion) phrased as questions that for some reason you think people should agree with implicitly.

---------- Post added 11-11-2010 at 09:22 PM ---------- If he wants to help pedosexuals, he should figure out how to use psychiatry to do it. I agree with his premise that the stigma makes the problem more difficult to solve, but I don't think his book helps at all with reducing the stigma. The book only directs the label and stigma to himself, and at the same time makes it look like hes completely naive and retarded. He does not cite any scientific studies, he does not seem to be relying on science at all. If he wanted to do this scientifically he would conduct a study on the affect of virtual child pornography and virtual worlds on pedophiles and pedosexuals so we can learn whether or not synthetic images and virtual reality reduces their desire to commit heinous acts in actual reality. Because he does not seem to know how to conduct even basic scientific and sociological research his book is worthless to anyone rational. That is the problem with his book. It's marketed at the irrational on all sides. Either the completely irrational pedophile, or the people who hate pedophiles, but I can't see any serious scientific person reading his book.

Pedosexual is child abuse apologist newspeak, but whatever.

I agree with you that this book is irrational, and I do find the idea of depictions of virtual abuse being available as opposed to pictures of actual abuse. Not that I'm particularly fond of either, but that which does not harm anybody directly is obviously more acceptable.

Also, in this discussion we seem to be ignoring the fact that not all, and maybe not most, child abusers are in fact pedophiles in the sense that they are exclusively or even at all sexually attracted to children.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	From the author's description of his book his goal was to lay down rules that might encourage pedophiles to self-regulate, or they might not. How is that a bad thing? At best it results in less harm and at worst it changes nothing.

If this "self-regulation" implies any sexual contact with children, which the author's description seemed to imply to me, then there is something massively wrong with it.

	Does it ever bother you that people on death row are regularly released because they turned out to be innocent of the crime?

Very much so. I don't think that there are adequate safeguards in place in the American justice system to assure that there are no executions of innocents and I think certain states are too gung-ho about applying the death penalty in areas where there is still ambiguity. I am a theoretical defender of the death penalty but I am not a practical partisan.

	I think he said that he had sexual contact with an adult female when he was a child. Would that change anyone's mind?

No. Being abused is not an excuse for continuing to abuse.

What if he wrote the book as a way to deal with what happened to him; an action that could help get it out and turn it into something positive? Would that cast the book in a different light? If not, do you think the people who do public speaking and tell others about being abused should stop because it might turn a pedophile on and encourage them to abuse a child, or (worse) might give them some new ideas on how to go about it without getting cautht?

In regards to the first sentence, well, he didn't, and in regards to the rest of the paragraph, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

	Well, that's all very reasonable. Any other people up for termination?

Yes; child molesters, rapists, murderers. Though it's been suggested that Mr. Greaves is not one of these, so I suppose he should not be executed.

Originally Posted by storm eyes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

He believed he loved and respected her, that does not mean that he infact did. If you look at it, it is about HIS manipulation, HIS desires, HIS needs. A common thread it would appear in pedophilia. I don't know many 12 year olds that want to be manipulated by fear, drugged and sexually assaulted. I don't know many adults who would desire that either. Pedophiles are predators, most animals will protect thier young from predators. Back to the book in question. What gives you the impression that this book is fiction? It is a guide book is it not?

Exactly. If a pedophile really loved a young child, he would wait until that child was of age.

[Savagelight]

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You aren't asking me a coherent question. You're making a series of assertions (and the last one is really a ridiculous assertion) phrased as questions that for some reason you think people should agree with implicitly. Pedosexual is child abuse apologist newspeak, but whatever.

What is accomplished by killing productive citizens? You lose demand, you weaken the economy, you weaken the country. It's better to keep the pedophiles in a city where theres no children, such as a college town environment, than to eradicate them and lose some of the best workers or in some cases best minds. What if the pedophile is an inventor, scientist or professor?

You have to give it a bit more thought. Our goal is to solve big problems not eradicate potential low moral human resources, unless you just hate pedophiles. As for murderers, and rapists, murderers can be useful as well if we need a mercenary or hitman. Rapists I can agree aren't going to be as useful but still unless you know each rapist individually, and unless you judge each case individually, you cannot say all of any group should be killed. You have to know about each case and think about it on a case by case basis, some of them might be willing to help you catch other rapists and once again they'd be useful.

[Eridal]

My view on this is simple.

First the author has every right to produce and sell his book to the public no matter what the material is unless his material is by intent made to encourage a crime such as in this example sex with underage children.

And second Amazon had every right to remove it from their stores, excepting an existing contract, as it is their right to choose what to sell in their stores. If they believed it would hurt sells of other items unrelated to that book then it's just good business sense to remove it from the store.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If this "self-regulation" implies any sexual contact with children, which the author's description seemed to imply to me, then there is something massively wrong with it.

Duh. But that's beside the point.
What I illustrated was that a book designed to encourage people already inclined to bad behavior to self-regulate such that their behavior is less-bad can't possibly do any harm. The only effect it can have, if any, is positive (even if it's minutely positive).

Arguing anything else is the same as arguing that no one should ever try to get anyone to moderate their behavior, because just talking about it makes things worse.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. Being abused is not an excuse for continuing to abuse.

Oh, did you find out that the author abused someone? I hadn't heard about that.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In regards to the first sentence, well, he didn't, and in regards to the rest of the paragraph, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

How sure are you?
In regards to the other point, are you trying to argue that any discussion of abuse tends to encourage more abuse? If not, then there must be exceptions for discussions of abuse that have a neutral to positive impact on the world. Since none of us have read the book, we can't be sure whether or not it fits into the neutral to positive category.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Exactly. If a pedophile really loved a young child, he would wait until that child was of age.

That's a pretty questionable assertion.

First, you must be operating under the delusion that the word "love" has been well defined. Also, you weren't clear about what "young" meant. Finally, why does the pedophile have to be a guy?

Anywho, I'm not defending pedophilia, I'm just interested in how extreme moral situations like this bring out the most interesting contradictions. For example, does your definition of the word "love" include a restriction that it's just not possible between a pedophile and a child? Or can a pedophile and child love each other the same way any other unusual couple can love each other? For example, I present people who love inanimate objects
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. Being abused is not an excuse for continuing to abuse.

I think this is an overly simplified statement. Many victims of abuse (not just sexual) grow up carrying the scars of abuse. They don't necessarily grow into abusers, but without proper care, i don't think it's uncommon for abuse victims to have trouble functioning properly in various ways.

As for excusing pedophilia, i don't know if its pardon or condemnation could come from any scientific viewpoint. That's a cultural thing. Its causes are unknown, too. There are several
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, many involving reduced brain function. Developmentally, it
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to heterosexuality or homosexuality... so aside from the fact that it's used to soften the connotation, "pedosexual" may be an appropriate term.

[hide=copypasta from wiki]Biological associations
---------------------
Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[50][51][52] poorer scores on memory tests,[51] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[50][51][53][54] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[55] lesser physical height,[56] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[57][58] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[59][60][61] They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.[62]

Another study, using structural MRI, shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter than a control group.[59]

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[63] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing."[64]

Blanchard, Cantor, and Robichaud (2006) reviewed the research that attempted to identify hormonal aspects of pedophiles.[65] They concluded that there is some evidence that pedophilic men have less testosterone than controls, but that the research is of poor quality and that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from it.

Development and course
-----------------------
Pedophilia can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to heterosexual or homosexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time.[66] These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses.[67][/hide]

[Warrior]

Addressing the OP, I agree with Eridal:

	Originally Posted by Eridal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Amazon had every right to remove it from their stores, excepting an existing contract, as it is their right to choose what to sell in their stores. If they believed it would hurt sells of other items unrelated to that book then it's just good business sense to remove it from the store.

Businesses make decisions every day to offer some products and services and not others. They make decisions to appeal to some groups of potential customers and not others. Not offering a product or service that a significant number of their customer base found objectionable is a perfectly fine thing for Amazon, or any business, to do. There's no censorship here.

[Lightman]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Duh. But that's beside the point. What I illustrated was that a book designed to encourage people already inclined to bad behavior to self-regulate such that their behavior is less-bad can't possibly do any harm. The only effect it can have, if any, is positive (even if it's minutely positive). Arguing anything else is the same as arguing that no one should ever try to get anyone to moderate their behavior, because just talking about it makes things worse.

There are not degrees of being raped as a child. There is not "bad" molestation of an eight year old and "slightly less bad" molestation of an eight year old.

You do not write a book that tells serial killers to "moderate" - there is no in between. You do not write a book telling rapists to "moderate" (Hey, Eddy, did you know that you're less of a rat bastard if you don't make her bleed?). You tell them to stop, and if they don't stop, you put them in jail. You do not encourage the creation of gentleman murderers or chivalrous rapists. The concepts themselves are absurd.

	Oh, did you find out that the author abused someone? I hadn't heard about that.

That wasn't my point.

	How sure are you? In regards to the other point, are you trying to argue that any discussion of abuse tends to encourage more abuse? If not, then there must be exceptions for discussions of abuse that have a neutral to positive impact on the world. Since none of us have read the book, we can't be sure whether or not it fits into the neutral to positive category.

Yes, there are most certainly discussions of abuse that don't necessarily encourage more abuse; there are also works that might be harmful but have redeeming artistic value, like Lolita. But...

"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."

This is the product description from Google's cached page. It is trying to create gentlemen molesters. Tres charmant.

	That's a pretty questionable assertion. First, you must be operating under the delusion that the word "love" has been well defined. Also, you weren't clear about what "young" meant. Finally, why does the pedophile have to be a guy?

He is the standard neuter pronoun in the English language.

By young I mean a prepubescent child. If we are talking about pedophilia, would it not be readily apparent that that is what I am referring to?

Anywho, I'm not defending pedophilia, I'm just interested in how extreme moral situations like this bring out the most interesting contradictions. For example, does your definition of the word "love" include a restriction that it's just not possible between a pedophile and a child? Or can a pedophile and child love each other the same way any other unusual couple can love each other? For example, I present people who love inanimate objects To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Businesses make decisions every day to offer some products and services and not others. They make decisions to appeal to some groups of potential customers and not others. Not offering a product or service that a significant number of their customer base found objectionable is a perfectly fine thing for Amazon, or any business, to do. There's no censorship here.

I agree and disagree with this. I think it isn't censorship in the traditional way it's considered, because no order was handed out from above, but it is censorship socially. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to avoid associations with pedophilia, but it is true that there's nothing wrong with selling books about whatever topic.

When a site offers what most would call objectionable content, people rush to avoid association, so advertisers and sponsors threaten to pull their services. If advertisers pull out, the site can either pay for its own bandwidth or it can find somebody who will advertise. Usually that means sites with questionable content, socially, end up resorting to porn ads. Torrent sites, for example, don't really seek out porn advertising because they think their visitors want porn ads. It's just the only advertising they can get to maintain the site without losing money. Here on INTJf, some content is not allowed because it could jeopardize advertising; same idea. Nobody wants to run a website that's eating money.

So in my opinion, it is censorship, but it's self-censorship by conformity rather than an attempt to silence some author so he can't sell his book

[LaoTzu]

There will always be a line, and there will always be people trying to cross it.

I have no problem with Amazon's decision. They attempted to sell it, and they changed their mind. Both sides should be satisfied.

As for pedo's ... Those involved will always attempt to rationalize such things... but to me they're just trying to convince themselves that they're 'normal'. They aren't.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anything to do with pedophilia gets censored. Even cartoon porn featuring children gets censored in this country. It could be a CGI image and by law it would be illegal to possess it.

Did you read the sources you cited? The US 1996 law that banned virtual child pornography was shot down by the Supreme Court:

	Originally Posted by http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/11/the-blurry-boundaries-of-child
	TheSupremeCourt[/url] struck down that law as overbroad in 2002,

[ya lyublyu tebya]

If the government had banned it, I would be outraged. Amazon is just a company, a huge one, but just a company, nonetheless. There's nothing stopping them from selling it. They chose not to. If a company were not allowed to choose what they do and do not want to sell, that would be far more dangerous.

[Aurelia]

There's been some discussion regarding the contents of the book. Here is an excerpt which discusses condom use in children younger than the age of 13:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


While the argument can be made that since the e-book is no longer available then no one can really say what it's about (although I personally think the title says it all and the few excerpts we do have support the assumptions most of us have made).

Let's say that the situation with Amazon was a case of censorship. Would that really be all that terrible in such a case like this? Should we live in a society where anything goes? No standards or boundaries?

[JTG]

Given that excerpt, i'd say the book encourages illegal activity and appears to give ways to evade detection and punishment. Knowing that, it's probably for the best if it's no longer available. I'm all for free expression, but if "how to make pipe bombs" is a bad thing to distribute (i think it is) then "how to get away with having sex with minors" is as well

[Amphorian]

Originally Posted by Aurelia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There's been some discussion regarding the contents of the book. Here is an excerpt which discusses condom use in children younger than the age of 13: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. While the argument can be made that since the e-book is no longer available then no one can really say what it's about (although I personally think the title says it all and the few excerpts we do have support the assumptions most of us have made). Let's say that the situation with Amazon was a case of censorship. Would that really be all that terrible in such a case like this? Should we live in a society where anything goes? No standards or boundaries?

*is speechless after reading some of the paragraphs* I agree fully with some previous posters now. Keep it down and kill the man.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	if "how to make pipe bombs" is a bad thing to distribute (i think it is) then "how to get away with having sex with minors" is as well

Just for fun, I looked to see if the Anarchists Cookbook was available on Amazon.

It is.

For people to make this an issue of awful 'censorship by the Government invading our lives' is extreme to the point of ridiculous. There is a reason we invented Government... this type of regulation is one of those reasons. To argue from a 'slippery slope' point of view is just silly....
You have to argue on a case-by-case basis instead; if you want to perfect the law.

If you choose not to have laws, then the point would be moot, because pedophiles would be hunted into extinction. Problem solved

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are not degrees of being raped as a child. There is not "bad" molestation of an eight year old and "slightly less bad" molestation of an eight year old.

Sure there is, and it's incredibly silly of you to even try to argue otherwise.

If you had a kid, would you rather someone kissed them, or fondled them? Would you rather they were fondled, or penetrated? Would you rather they were penetrated, or strangled? Etc. You can't seriously claim that all of those options are equally bad, so there ARE degrees.
Also, that list doesn't even include the possibility that the child participates willingly. I don't know how often that happens, but I don't know much about pedophilia in general, because no one's allowed to study it.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You do not write a book that tells serial killers to "moderate"...You do not write a book telling rapists to "moderate"...You tell them to stop...

Ummm...yeah, I'm sure it feels really good to fantasize that you live in a world of moral absolutes...but you don't.

In the real world there are always degrees. Can you at least admit that a book encouraging people to do less-bad things, rather than more-bad things, could potentially have a good impact? Not necessarily a large-good impact, but at least more positive than neutral.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...and if they don't stop, you put them in jail. You do not encourage the creation of gentleman murderers or chivalrous rapists. The concepts themselves are absurd.

If your only two options are "bad" and "worse" you pick "bad." Duh. It's called "the lesser of two evils" and it's been well documented for pretty much all of written history. Wouldn't a polite criminal be better than a rude criminal? If you were going to get raped wouldn't you prefer that the rapist wear a condom so that you don't catch any diseases from them? I mean, I know I would. I don't want to get raped (duh), but getting raped with a condom would be less-bad than getting raped without a condom.

I don't think your objection is really that the concepts are absurd, since the concepts are quite straight forward, I think your objection is that you find starting thinking about anything related to the topic too distasteful to finish thinking.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That wasn't my point.

That would have been a perfect time to explain what your point was.

Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, there are most certainly discussions of abuse that don't necessarily encourage more abuse; there are also works that might be harmful but have redeeming artistic value, like Lolita. But... "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."

You can't claim to know what a book is about from the title and a couple paragraphs. You sound like those crazies who protest movies they've never seen, based only on what they imagine must be the content.

I understand what the dilemma must be. To find out what's in the book you'd have to buy it, but buying it would support and encourage the author. BUT, why not just read it and, if it's the work of the devil, return it and get your money back. "Any content you purchase for Kindle from the Kindle Store is eligible for return and refund if we receive your request within 7 days of the date of purchase."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He is the standard neuter pronoun in the English language.

No, "they" is the proper "neuter" pronoun. English is a bit unique in that you can refer to someone without ever referencing a gender.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By young I mean a prepubescent child. If we are talking about pedophilia, would it not be readily apparent that that is what I am referring to?

Okay, now explain what "love" means.

	Originally Posted by Aurelia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's say that the situation with Amazon was a case of censorship. Would that really be all that terrible in such a case like this? Should we live in a society where anything goes? No standards or boundaries?

I don't think "terrible" is the right word, but it would be objectionable. I think one of America's greatest strengths is its marketplace of ideas. Ideas don't hurt anyone, only people hurt other people. Sometimes people are inspired by ideas to hurt other people, but that is not the fault of the idea or of the person who introduced the idea, it is the fault of the person who caused the harm.

Pretty much every movie we make features a gun, or a car chase, or someone getting kicked in the nuts...but we can't blame the script writer when someone really gets shot, run over, or kicked in the nuts.

There need to be limits on actions, but limits on ideas are unacceptable.

Is anyone here seriously worried that pedophilia might become culturally acceptable no matter how many times NAMBLA tries to convince people it's healthy?

[Amphorian]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is anyone here seriously worried that pedophilia might become culturally acceptable no matter how many times NAMBLA tries to convince people it's healthy?

Pedophilia has been/is accepted in other cultures, so yes it is a legitimate concern.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is anyone here seriously worried that pedophilia might become culturally acceptable no matter how many times NAMBLA tries to convince people it's healthy?

No I don't, but I also see no significant harm inflicted on free speech by a private distributor refusing to sell a manual on how to rape children.

[Lightman]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sure there is, and it's incredibly silly of you to even try to argue otherwise. If you had a kid, would you rather someone kissed them, or fondled them? Would you rather they were fondled, or penetrated? Would you rather they were penetrated, or strangled? Etc. You can't seriously claim that all of those options are equally bad, so there ARE degrees. Also, that list doesn't even include the possibility that the child participates willingly. I don't know how often that happens, but I don't know much about pedophilia in general, because no one's allowed to study it.

Other: All of the above should be executed.

A child cannot meaningfully consent to sex.

	Ummm...yeah, I'm sure it feels really good to fantasize that you live in a world of moral absolutes...but you don't.

Awesome. I prefer this world to the pseudo-relativist world where apologizing for pedophilia makes perfect sense.

In the real world there are always degrees. Can you at least admit that a book encouraging people to do less-bad things, rather than more-bad things, could potentially have a good impact? Not necessarily a large-good impact, but at least more positive than neutral. If your only two options are "bad" and "worse" you pick "bad." Duh. It's called "the lesser of two evils" and it's been well documented for pretty much all of written history. Wouldn't a polite criminal be better than a rude criminal? If you were going to get raped wouldn't you prefer that the rapist wear a condom so that you don't catch any diseases from them? I mean, I know I would. I don't want to get raped (duh), but getting raped with a condom would be less-bad than getting raped without a condom.

No. In fact, it positively causes harm, because it legitimizes molestation in the eyes of pedophiles; "Well, it's all right if I do this, because I have a code of conduct!" You are creating a false dichotomy where the options are between the gentleman pedophile and the loutish pedophile. Clearly, both are equally unacceptable.

	I don't think your objection is really that the concepts are absurd, since the concepts are quite straight forward, I think your objection is that you find starting thinking about anything related to the topic too distasteful to finish thinking.

I think that legitimizing some of the worst crimes possible by putting them into categories of gentlemanly and ungentlemanly is disgusting.

You can't claim to know what a book is about from the title and a couple paragraphs. You sound like those crazies who protest movies they've never seen, based only on what they imagine must be the content. I understand what the dilemma must be. To find out what's in the book you'd have to buy it, but buying it would support and encourage the author. BUT, why not just read it and, if it's the work of the devil, return it and get your money back. "Any content you purchase for Kindle from the Kindle Store is eligible for return and refund if we receive your request within 7 days of the date of purchase." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Cool story bro. See quotes above.

	No, "they" is the proper "neuter" pronoun. English is a bit unique in that you can refer to someone without ever referencing a gender.

"They" is a legitimate neuter pronoun; "he" is also a legitimate neuter pronoun. "He" had more widespread use until the gender neutral language movement. I prefer "he" because I dislike constructions like "themself".

Making assertions without having a clue about the history of what you're talking about is always great fun.

	Okay, now explain what "love" means.

Love is not something that is abusive; a relationship between a prepubescent child and an adult is inherently abusive.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Is anyone here seriously worried that pedophilia might become culturally acceptable no matter how many times NAMBLA tries to convince people it's healthy? Pedophilia has been/is accepted in other cultures, so yes it is a legitimate concern.

Interestingly, the practice doesn't seem to cause the same harm in societies where it's acceptable. I think the reason it's so damaging in western culture is because there's a great deal of shame involved.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Love is not something that is abusive; a relationship between a prepubescent child and an adult is inherently abusive.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily the case, however in western culture where it is taboo, the only people who practice it are deviants in society. It's like the general perception that all drug dealers are criminals. It's against the law because criminals do it, and people who do it are criminals because it's against the law

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Interestingly, the practice doesn't seem to cause the same harm in societies where it's acceptable. I think the reason it's so damaging in western culture is because there's a great deal of shame involved.

It still causes a great deal of harm, it's just not considered a problem because in those cultures children and prostitutes are subhuman property and damage is only the concern of their owner.

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wouldn't say that's necessarily the case, however in western culture where it is taboo, the only people who practice it are deviants in society. It's like the general perception that all drug dealers are criminals. It's against the law because criminals do it, and people who do it are criminals because it's against the law

That's a bad analogy; consensual compared with coerced.

[blueback]

LOL, do I have to put a disclamer into every single post stating something to the effect of: pedophilia is bad just so that you can entertain the hypothetical idea that I can think something is bad and still discuss it? Unlike some people (not naming any names) I'm not afraid of discussing anything.

Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Other: All of the above should be executed. No. In fact, it positively causes harm, because it legitimizes molestation in the eyes of pedophiles; "Well, it's all right if I do this, because I have a code of conduct!" You are creating a false dichotomy where the options are between the gentleman pedophile and the loutish pedophile. Clearly, both are equally unacceptable. I think that legitimizing some of the worst crimes possible by putting them into categories of gentlemanly and ungentlemanly is disgusting.

I think you're confusing "legitimazation" with "categorization." Just because an entire spectrum of events are all bad doesn't mean labeling and discussing the spectrum in detail makes them suddenly not bad. You seem to be suffering under the illusion that discussing something dispassionately is the same as condoning it.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Cool story bro. See quotes above.

Could you expand on that rebuttal? It didn't make any sense.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"They" is a legitimate neuter pronoun; "he" is also a legitimate neuter pronoun. "He" had more widespread use until the gender neutral language movement. I prefer "he" because I dislike constructions like "themself".

Right, except that you wrote "he is THE standard neuter pronoun". That's not the case, which is why writers (like in journalism) frequently alternate using he and she, because they recognize that while phrases like "the guys" CAN refer to a coed group, the assumption is not automatic.

So, when you have a word that may or may not be gender neutral, and a word that is inescapably gender neutral, you can't call the former "the standard" neuter pronoun. It's a minor point, but it's interesting that you defended it.

	Originally Posted by Lightman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Love is not something that is abusive; a relationship between a prepubescent child and an adult is inherently abusive.

LOL, you need to be more careful. It's okay, I tear people's arguments apart with mistakes like that all the time, but I do wish people would start thinking harder.

What you just wrote literally means that it doesn't matter what form the relationship between an adult and a child takes, it is abusive. I ASSUME from the context of the overall discussion that you mean a sexual relationship, but since you didn't specify you could easily have meant something else.

Anywho, whether or not that's what you meant, the flaw in your assertion is that you can't say for sure whether or not a relationship is abusive. Abusive simply means "mistreatment," which is a relative term. The most you could honestly say is that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is much more likely to be abusive. Of course, that's mostly based on an area of knowledge that is difficult (if not impossible) to study, and even when it is studied the samples are all self-selected. I mean, if a child DID appreciate the sexual attention of an adult they'd never tell anyone about it because they'd get the adult throw in jail. So, you're never going to hear about any positive relationships.

But, none of that is really important, since the important thing is the question of whether or not to allow a book you've never read to be sold. Equating the mere existence of a book with an actual assault on a person is absurd, and so is equating the discussion of a topic with an actual assault. They aren't the same thing, no matter how much more comfortable living in that fantasy world makes you.

[Savagelight]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Did you read the sources you cited? The US 1996 law that banned virtual child pornography was shot down by the Supreme Court:

I posted it up to show that the basis behind the creation of laws such as this are not reasonable. It's hatred of pedophiles made into law.

---------- Post added 11-14-2010 at 02:50 PM ----------

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anywho, I'm not defending pedophilia, I'm just interested in how extreme moral situations like this bring out the most interesting contradictions. For example, does your definition of the word "love" include a restriction that it's just not possible between a pedophile and a child? Or can a pedophile and child love each other the same way any other unusual couple can love each other? For example, I present people who love inanimate objects To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

People who love inanimate objects are delusional. Their delusion isn't harming anyone. People who love children are delusional, and their delusion harms children.

Adults should not love children in an intimate way. If you want to show love for children, educate, enlighten, write a children's book, create a game, save a child's life. It has nothing to do with sexuality.

Love and sex are correlated but not casually related. Yes it's true that usually when an adult loves another adult in a specific way it can result in sexual expression, but sexual expression is only one form and method to express love and it's not particularly the best form even for adults because a lot of adults have issues involving sex where they cannot distinguish sex from love. Adults are just as confused about sex and love as a lot of children would be, the difference is it's better for a child to have their first experiences with someone within their age range so that they learn together and on a level playing field rather than to have some adult who already learned these lessons to be in a position where it's predatory.

Let young people learn about love from other young people. An adult trying to love a child is only going to lead to confusion. Finally love and sex are not the same. Sex may be an expression of love but it's usually not. Love can be expressed in a million ways, but only the sexual expression of love is the type pedophiles prefer.

Lightman says love is not abusive, unfortunately most adults don't know how to love each other. Most people don't know what love really is, and they just want control over the other or they want the other to have control over them. This is not love, love is the promotion of autonomy not the suppression of it. It's impossible for an adult to love a child in a sexual way specifically because the child is not experienced enough to understand. This is why it's abusive even if the adult legitimately did love the child. It's also abusive because the pedophile typically just has a sexual desire or fantasy involving any child, and it has nothing to do with love at all but they try to hide this behind a veil of love.

What would a 30 year old man have in common with an 8 year old boy? What basis would they have to fall in love? It's more likely that the 30 year old man just wants sex and doesn't really love the 8 year old. It's the fact that they have nothing in common due to the age difference which makes the pedophile a complete predator, or mentally retarded. Either way the pedophile is crazy, delusional, and needs to be locked away if they cannot control their impulses.

[Lightman]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	LOL, do I have to put a disclamer into every single post stating something to the effect of: pedophilia is bad just so that you can entertain the hypothetical idea that I can think something is bad and still discuss it? Unlike some people (not naming any names) I'm not afraid of discussing anything.

Considering I am discussing it, this snide criticism would be pretty ludicrous, wouldn't it be?

	I think you're confusing "legitimazation" with "categorization." Just because an entire spectrum of events are all bad doesn't mean labeling and discussing the spectrum in detail makes them suddenly not bad. You seem to be suffering under the illusion that discussing something dispassionately is the same as condoning it.

Are you referring to this conversation or to the book? Because, as evidenced by the quotes provided by another user above, the book clearly is not a dispassionate discussion of pedophilia, it is condoning it and advising pedophiles on how to abuse children without being caught.

	Could you expand on that rebuttal? It didn't make any sense.

Read the quotes from the book provided above.

Right, except that you wrote "he is THE standard neuter pronoun". That's not the case, which is why writers (like in journalism) frequently alternate using he and she, because they recognize that while phrases like "the guys" CAN refer to a coed group, the assumption is not automatic. So, when you have a word that may or may not be gender neutral, and a word that is inescapably gender neutral, you can't call the former "the standard" neuter pronoun. It's a minor point, but it's interesting that you defended it.

Alternating between he and she as a neuter pronoun is actually moronic and incorrect. But whatever, this entire aside is a waste of time.

LOL, you need to be more careful. It's okay, I tear people's arguments apart with mistakes like that all the time, but I do wish people would start thinking harder. What you just wrote literally means that it doesn't matter what form the relationship between an adult and a child takes, it is abusive. I ASSUME from the context of the overall discussion that you mean a sexual relationship, but since you didn't specify you could easily have meant something else.

I know pedantry is an INTJ trait, but really, in the context of this conversation that was entirely unnecessary. Essentially an exercise in "I am the most sardonic arguer here, here me roar".

Anywho, whether or not that's what you meant, the flaw in your assertion is that you can't say for sure whether or not a relationship is abusive. Abusive simply means "mistreatment," which is a relative term. The most you could honestly say is that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is much more likely to be abusive. Of course, that's mostly based on an area of knowledge that is difficult (if not impossible) to study, and even when it is studied the samples are all self-selected. I mean, if a child DID appreciate the sexual attention of an adult they'd never tell anyone about it because they'd get the adult throw in jail. So, you're never going to hear about any positive relationships.

I do not care if you preface your argument with "pedophilia is bad" because you at present apologizing for pedophilia.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that these hypothetical (fictional) relationships in which a prepubescent child is in a sexual relationship with an adult exist, and even supposing that they do,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of sexual abuse result in children having psychological disorders.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


So you have decided that the results of pedophilia are impossible to study. They are not.

But, none of that is really important, since the important thing is the question of whether or not to allow a book you've never read to be sold. Equating the mere existence of a book with an actual assault on a person is absurd, and so is equating the discussion of a topic with an actual assault. They aren't the same thing, no matter how much more comfortable living in that fantasy world makes you.

When exactly did I do that? I think this book is disgusting, I hope that the author's real identity (I highly doubt that the name he gave Amazon was his real name) is discerned and he is publicly humiliated, and I think Amazon is correct not to sell this book.

[Savagelight]

Let me make myself clear. My previous post specifically condemns pedophilia. This is why I used the example of a 30 year old man and an 8 year old boy. What exactly could they have in common as a basis to fall in love?

I'm not condemning
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
which is attraction to teenagers as I think this is a different category. It is possible for teenager and adult to be in the same age range and have many things in common. It is possible for teenager and adult to fall in love, it depends on the age difference between the two individuals and more importantly the development stage difference. I don't think it's possible for an adult to fall in love with a child (pedophilia), I do think it's possible for an adult to fall in love with a teenager (ephebophilia).

The book is about pedophilia not ephebophilia, and the discussion is about pedophilia not ephebophilia, it's important that when we make arguments we keep that in mind. In specific when we discuss topics of "love" and "sex", a child is not going to understand either of these things, a teenager might understand these things and may even look like an adult. If we are going to focus on going after pedophiles we have to at least get the categories right, and we also have to keep in mind the age difference between the individuals.

The older they are the more likely they are to be a predator if its ephebophilia and if it's pedophilia they are certain to be a predator.