/lit/ - Literature

Hm. Muddy.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say let him go and that he's done nothing wrong. But I could probably be persuaded otherwise.

If I knew the actual content of the book I would be able to judge the issue better; but I doubt that is possible. I think that ultimately, a book is never truly a "clear and present danger", nor is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater--this notion forgets the responsibility of those "theater goers" to be able to file out in an orderly fashion if you get the somewhat poor metaphor.

I say let him go. As far as I know, he hasn't broken any laws, and I have no idea what's actually in the book.

Why didn't they arrest him when it was being sold on amazon?

Post ePub of the book and let's judge!

Free speech is dying

>>1376061

First they went after the Communists, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist.
Then they went after the homosexuals and infirm, and I did not stand up because I was neither.
Then they went after the Jews, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Jew.
Then they went after the Catholics, and I did not stand up, because I was Protestant.
Finally, they went after me, and there was no one left to stand up for me.

>>1376100
What the fuck. You had all that time to befriend them, or at least run away, while they were fucking with everybody else-- and you just waited for them to take you?

You get what you deserve, you idle fuck!

>>1376044
Apparently he had to personally ship a physical copy to Florida before Florida police could arrest him in Colorado for violating a Florida obscenity law

Are books about murder concidered obscene?

>>1376110
>obscenity laws

Goddamnit, when is someone going to repeal those as unconstitutional? Also I've read that ebook, I don't think there is anything explicit in there. Although the content may be objectionable to some I don't think the obscenity charge will hold.

>>1376104
You know, I find it odd that they come for the "communists", "homosexuals and infirm", "jews","catholics", "protestants" and "you".
Seriously, their new policy is that "you" are illegal, not a group of people, just one. Seriously you must have pissed someone off. Not to mention there aren't exactly that many demographic boxes left unchecked who are these people doing the "coming for", straight healthy atheist with no communist sympathies? that has got to be a pretty small group proportionally speaking, especially if you include obesity as an infirmity.

Hell you've eliminated like 75-80% of americans with the catholics and protestants. Frankly the logistics of tracking down an individual over a country this size with only 1/5 the people. It'll be a ghost town everywhere.

>>1376116
Books that tell you how to murder people, and especially how to get away with it may be. I have no idea if that's what this book does with kiddie diddling, though

>>1376100
The problem with that is that there's nothing wrong with being a homosexual or a communist or a Jew. If innocent people were being rounded up for no reason, then I'd likely act to back them up. But paedophiles are fucking scum who want to have sex with little kids. I won't stand for that.

>>1376122

I think he means that "you" belongs to another religious/ethnic group.

>>1376124
>Books that tell you how to murder people, and especially how to get away with it may be

There are plenty of books that do this. Seriously, any book with a major or main character that is a killer or assassin would fit this criteria. Obscenity laws are completely absurd and unconstitutional. They should only be used to screen books that have extremely graphic and explicit content. These books should then be sold behind the desk of a bookstore so you have to ask for it or in shrink wrap or something. No one should be arrested for what they read.

>>1376132
hear, hear
The deviate memitic germ that infects the paedophile psyche cannot be burned out with fever nor cured by any panacea, but must therefore, for th good of the herd, be removed by culling.

The paedophile germ, is a cunning thing, for those who receive the abuses of the paedophile, are themselves more likely to be infected with the paedophile germ, this is only one vector of spread for the deviate meme, it can spread through more subtle and standard methods of enculturation as well.

In short the scourge of the paedophile cannot be fought as we might other petty crimes, it must be fought as we would a disease, a cancer in the body politic, it must be excised, isolated, and if necessary extirpated.

>>1376132
>The problem with that is that there's nothing wrong with being a homosexual or a communist or a Jew. If innocent people were being rounded up for no reason, then I'd likely act to back them up. But paedophiles are fucking scum who want to have sex with little kids.
There's also a quote about a government going for the people no one else dare defend, anyone have that?

damn stuck up bitches who need their brands/clothes because they're prudes and are scared they'll get a boner if they see a naked child.

as far as op's comment goes, there is that quote that without the freedom to offend, freedom does not exist. we're talking about a book here. not physically hurting anyone. people should do whatever the hell they want as long as they aren't physically hurting anyone against their will. people have the freedom to NOT read the book. why don't they exercise that freedom and leave it alone...

another anon mentioned murder in books. that's a good point. i think the source for why people freak when the notion of naked children come up is the same reason why we have more and more pedos. in nudist colonies you don't have issues with sexually-related child abuse. anyways i recently bought a copy of sally mann's immediate family and i love it. and i don't get aroused.

>>1376187
got off topic a bit but /rant

>>1376187
>damn stuck up bitches who need their brands/clothes because they're prudes and are scared they'll get a boner if they see a naked child.
Really. They're afraid to even show naked babies on TV. I saw a show where they blocked out a 2 year old's chest because it was a girl. They're basically TELLING YOU that you might be aroused by it. They're inserting that thought in the first place.

>>1376132
I think you've been royally told at this point for your double-standard mindset, especially by >>1376156, but what about pedos who, despite having the attraction to children, are never going to do anything that would hurt a child? That probably accounts for the vast majority of them. You might know respect hundreds of people who are secret pedos.

>>1376132
I think you've been royally told at this point for your double-standard mindset, especially by >>1376156, but what about pedos who, despite having the attraction to children, are never going to do anything that would hurt a child? That probably accounts for the vast majority of them. You might know and respect hundreds of people who are secret pedos.

>>1376193
yeah, that's stupid. and people are even scared to talk about it. my dad for example was scared to take my two nieces out shopping by himself because he was worried what people might think; seeing an old guy and two young girls together. wtf??? i honestly don't care if people are attracted to children. people are attracted to all sorts of shit that seem wrong. we all are. if even compulsory. however, we won't ever educate in a way to really help child abusers and protect kids without taking their humanity away from them because we're too scared to imo.

>>1376213
Hmmm, but why would these "secret pedos" require a book telling them how to abuse children? Moreover, if they do not display overt pedo-ness, in what manner would you round them up? Its sort of a don't ask don't tell thing, except much more shameful and deserving of scorn.

>>1376217
why would we want to help child abusers? that would make us accessories or co-conspirators or something. I'm not down with that.

>>1376213
the government did a study and found that most people were attracted to younger people too (if even only mildly so). our government wanted to censor these findings.

>>1376223
There is absolutely zero proof that any book would actively 'help' a child abuser abuse a child. It's possible but to ban book (which by itself is completely harmless) on such a weak premise is foolish. A child abuser will not need a goddamn study guide to help him abuse children. He or she will likely do it anyway. Arresting someone for a book like this sets a dangerous precedent.

>>1376223
no dummy. i didn't mean abetting in crime. i meant, in helping people with their psychological problems. and knowing what really is and isn't a problem. people get off too much on making others feel isolated and inferior. its everywhere on 4chan. i would much rather understand without exemption the subject.

I hope they lock that kiddie fucker up for good.

umad libfags?

First: from a legal standpoint, Florida doesn't have a leg to stand on. "Clear and present danger" doesn't apply, since this is about obscenity / what it's legal to represent or depict. The Supreme Court alread ruled on this issue in 2002, in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, which struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The guy they arrested may be a creepy loser, but he didn't break any laws.

Legally speaking, the prosecution is horseshit: this is what is known as "grandstanding" or "electioneering" or "publicity-mongering". The general public overwhelmingly fears/loathes pedophiles, therefore cops and district attorneys can always bolster their own reputation by going after a pedophile. Not to mention, the sad weirdo who wrote the book got a hell of a lot of attention, but nothing happened to him. Florida aims to step into the gap, despite the fact that the sad weirdo is in Colorado.

Personally I find pedophilia bewildering and horrifying, but I find prior restraint of published works to be equally horrifying. Of course this freak's rights should be protected: don't take it from me, read the Supreme Court's opinion in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition.

>>1376229
not really the precedent was set a while ago by the supreme court, its an obscenity case, the courts have been hearing those for ages. Its just that most obscenity issues moved towards tv and video games in recent years and people stopped caring about books as much.

>>1376235
not mad. i mean the book's title in op's post is inflammatory to begin with. if i was the average cop i'm not sure what i'd do. people have a right to think and feel however way they want. even all the "monsters" out there. however, they should never have the right to abuse children. if the author has not done so, then what the hell?

>>1376237
I read the wikipedia summary of the majority opinion, don't see a conflict, there's still a case to be made against the pedo book. Its not a clear cut sure-victory case, but there's one to be made.

Anyone have information on the actual Florida statute he's being charged under?

>>1376235
>libfags
As in libertarian? Yes, as a libertarian, yes, I am mad that people like you exist. Although the vigilant and self-righteous do probably play an evolutionary role. People like you are responsible for the Salem Witch Trials.

>>1376235
Hehe yah, and also all niggers must burn *winks knowingly*

>>1376263
hey, I thought we all agreed that bad rye was the cause for the Salem witch trials.

>>1376263
Did you just compare the innocent little girls of Salem to a guy who encourages child abuse?

I heartily encourage you to remove your head from your ass before piping up again.

>>1376270
That was a scapegoat. The rye is perfectly innocent. People like you are the reason the Trix rabbit can't enjoy his yogurt.

>>1376277
I thought we all agreed that the Trix rabbit was self-sabotaging due to an innate fear of success

>>1376273
What? Don't be dumb. Make an actual argument and I'll respond properly.

>Anyone have information on the actual Florida statute he's being charged under?

I assume it's just a standard obscenity statute. Promoting and distributing smut through the mail, that sort of thing.

>Did you just compare the innocent little girls of Salem

Oh please. Recent scholarship has demonstrated that the vast majority of those tried and executed in Salem were guilty as charged. Those little girls were hardly innocent.

>>1376237
>creepy loser
>sad weirdo
>freak
>Personally I find pedophilia bewildering and horrifying
you realize this is an anonymous board, right?

The Anarchist Cookbook has been allowed to exist for the past 40 years, I see this being no more harmful to society.

It's clear to me that our penal system is a failure for the most part, and all it serves now is to make 'normal' people in society feel good about their own lives.

>>1376285
Yes, but it seems that Florida might have broader laws than other states if they're the ones going after him, it could just be grandstanding, but I'd like to know.

>>1376279
That's pseudo-science and you know it. Those children are oppressive monsters!

>>1376291
The anarchist cookbook is crap. This book is a threat to children, people innately see that as worse, don't fight it, its human nature.

The penal system is a failure, but it still serves a purpose, even if it doesn't do it at maximum efficiency. Its still a deterrent. In general it fails at any semblance of rehabilitation (it could do better but money got in the way about a hundred years back, we've been behind ever since), but there's no evidence that would work for pedophiles anyway.

From the title, it sounds like he was giving instructions to crime rather than writing innocent fiction. If he was giving advice on how to commit horrible crimes in real life, he got what he deserved. Freedom of speech is important, but encouraging and assisting crime is more than just harmless words.

>>1376288
THANK YOU. Fucking normalfags man. I can hardly even defend a politically incorrect view these days without being ostracized.

>>1376299
>don't fight it, its human nature.

>implying what is and isn't human nature isn't forever debatable

>>1376312
NO! NO! He told you not to fight it. You're breaking the rules.

>>1376297
they're kids, they're not tracking him down and ruining his life, they have to go to school sometime, he continually goes out of his way to get trix around them somehow. At least once I think he disguised himself as a school janitor to steal from them. Seriously, break into their houses, their parents are at work the kids are at school and no one will suspect a rabbit. He's self sabotaging out of his need to "best" the children.

>>1376304
>but encouraging and assisting crime is more than just harmless words.

of course. but if they are only words?

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves"

i agree with this. do you?

>>1376304
>encouraging and assisting crime

What crime? Seriously, what fucking crime? Theoretical crimes that have not happened and are not likely to happen are not crimes. You can write a book on how to make a bomb or kill someone. Why is this any different?

>>1376323
Of course that's why laws apply to everyone, he lacks the freedom to advocate child rape just like everyone else.

>>1376326
>Why is this any different?

the fear and facination we have with shit like this is on another level. because we don't understand it and because we're dreadfully bored.

>>1376326
because it involves children
because it involves an obscene criminal act instead of just a regular criminal act
because ultimately we're fighting a culture war on pedophiles and I don't intend to lose.

>>1376332
The only legally valid reason you have in there is "because it's obscene". And we all know obscenity laws are retarded.

>>1376327
so nothing offensive should be allowed in your free country? where is that line of what is and isn't? should we base it on fear? on science? the guy wrote a book that had a stupid title on stupid subject-matter. he should be allowed to do this regardless of your sentiment.

video games are violent and probably advocate it in many ways a book could begin to do. should we ban all video games? what about violent movies? because popular opinion says its okay?

>>1376299
As someone who works with munitions and small explosives, I will say that The Anarchist Cookbook is very dangerous.

The stuff for example that the Unabomber used can all be found in The Anarchist Cookbook. Not only that but a lot of the recipes for the explosives are highly unstable.

The Anarchist Cookbook also teaches you breaking and entering without being caught. In Highschool my buddies and I would drive around finding summer homes since we live in Florida and stay in them weeks at a time never getting caught. We did all of this from reading The Anarchist Cookbook.

I advocate the rape of children.

>>1376341
fuuuck man you better delete that fast or someone's going to report you!!!!!!!!

>>1376332
the war is against yourself. if you tread this way without understanding shit, your culture won't be worth having. no one on either side of the argument itt is an advocate of child abuse, moron.

>>1376343
apparently loads of the idiots on this board constantly emailed moot/4chan to have me banned from the board.

>>1376345
this was me.

>>1376341
damnit

>>1376340
While you and your friends were a bunch of irresponsible shitstains in high school I still don't think the Cookbook should be banned or the author arrested. It's up to your parents to keep shit like that away from impressionable children.

>>1376362
He wasn't advocating that. He was explaining why the Anarchist Cookbook is just as, if not more, dangerous. And it's still available.

I may not advocate child rape, but I will defend to the death its advocation

>>1376337
Legally valid? I don't know what the fuck that means, there is only the will of the people, all legal authority comes from what freedoms the people are willing to sacrifice in order that no one else have them. There is no justification beyond that. There is only the hoi polloi and their demands for a justice that can never be defined.

>>1376339

>so nothing offensive should be allowed in your free country?
No such thing as a free country it was stupid distinction made up to make us sound better than the commies.

>where is that line of what is and isn't?
Its interpretive, necessarily so, if you drew a line, people would just go all loophole on you. Instead you have to look that work holistically in terms of artistic/social merit, intended and likely use etc.

>should we base it on fear?
why not? Fear is important, its what keeps man on the Savannah from being eaten by predators, and it will keep our children from being eaten out by predators.

on science? the guy wrote a book that had a stupid title on stupid subject-matter. he should be allowed to do this regardless of your sentiment. The circle of life.

>should we ban all video games?
Yes, yes we should, but that's on an unrelated note.

>what about violent movies?
I'm a little more fond of those, so I'm going with no.

>because popular opinion says its okay?
Its as good a reason as any. There is no true reason why we should or should not do anything, so the mob has the moral authority to do what we want.

>>1376369
>all legal authority comes from what freedoms the people are willing to sacrifice in order that no one else have them.
>the people are willing to sacrifice
You are aware that the United States is a representative democracy, right? The people don't directly propose or write these bills. All a politician would need to do is propose it and everyone would be afraid to oppose it out of fear of looking like a pedo.

>>1376384
so? if looking like a pedo is condemned by society, then laws against pedo-ness are condoned by society.

OP here, and I am back from shopping for Christmas gifts..personally, I think that a text is a text, and there can be no clear case where a writer is responsible for the actions of the reader, nor that the text is ex post facto responsible for someone's pedophilia. That being said, I was the victim of pedophilia as a kid, but I've come around to the opinion that even pedophilia must be "accepted" in the sense that we will not simply eradicate it from society, and should instead find ways of allowing these desires to be satisfied indirectly, if possible. We cannot put aberrations into an oubliette.

>you realize this is an anonymous board, right?

Yeah, I do. I was just giving my assessment of the actual author based on the interview with him that I saw when Amazon withdrew the book. I was simply trying to emphasize that he ain't Nabokov.

>but encouraging and assisting crime is more than just harmless words.

Yeah, well, look up the case of "Rex Feral" (who turned out to be a middle-aged housewife), prosecuted for publishing a guide to murder-for-hire. The first amendment is still the first fucking amendment. Get used to it.

>We cannot put aberrations into an oubliette.

"The Aberrant Oubliette" sounds like an illustrated book by Edward Gorey.

>>1376387
>so?
So your whole "realist" idea about the people deciding exactly what they should or shouldn't allow falls apart.
>if looking like a pedo is condemned by society, then laws against pedo-ness are condoned by society.
Not only is this too vague ("laws against pedo-ness"), but it can easily be refuted by looking at other situations, like the Anarchist Cookbook example. People condemn trespassers and thieves, yet laws against the Anarchist Cookbook aren't condoned.

>>1376369
>Fear is important, its what keeps man on the Savannah from being eaten by predators, and it will keep our children from being eaten out by predators.


I lol'd

>>1376432
>>1376432
>So your whole "realist" idea about the people deciding exactly what they should or shouldn't allow falls apart.
No it doesn't, direct democracy, representative, or tyranny, its all the same, its policies are limited by what the people will allow before taking action, sure the thresh hold is different between different governments, but that doesn't somehow mean that the people don't ultimately bear the burden of responsibility for the law.

>>1376369
>Its as good a reason as any. There is no true reason why we should or should not do anything, so the mob has the moral authority to do what we want.

so i guess scientific research is pointless?

it's principle (reason) versus human intuition/instinct.

>fear
like how the nazis handled homosexuals and jews? like segregation? if anything, history has shown us fear isn't the best way in a modern society. fear is good in fight or flight, but as a philosophy for how we handle what kind of information a person can make, or have the right to read? i'm an adult. i'm not diagnosed with any psych problems so i should be able to judge for myself tyvm.

>>1376515
who said scientific research is pointless, it just won't give you the answer to normative statements, statements about what we SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do.

>>1376527
yeah, research wasn't used in what games we should and should not allow. and research is never used to explore taboo subjects in understanding what should and should not be okay. whatever, bro!

I have a problem with paedophiles, but I care little about them so long as they're not acting on their desires. But when someone advocates and encourages people to engage in sexual relations with little children, then it does become a huge concern. It shouldn't be allowed.

>>1376515
really you're breaking out the Reductio ad Hitlerum, I thought we were having a nice little discussion. I am disappoint.

>>1376539
what the fuck are you talking about, research can give you the consequences of one thing or another, it can't you a meta-ethical reason to take action.

>>1376513
So your argument comes down to the fact that if a majority of people think it's morally wrong than it is morally wrong? Isn't this basically showing that your argument is "It's wrong because I think it is" and that the other guy is saying "it's right because I think it is"?

If so, why are you arguing?

>>1376527
i'm sorry you feel like you're not a responsible adult. otherwise you you would be able to read iffy shit and not take it to heart.without the government telling you.

>>1376552
Just because I believe morality isn't objective, doesn't mean I don't believe we can convince other people of our beliefs. Humans have built into their social behavior, the ability to be swayed by hear others speak out on behalf of or against a thing, its like teenagers in those cigarette PSAs. (see Stevenson's emotivism for more).

Morality is a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong, independent of their origin they compel you to act by their nature, why fight them? just embrace them as a part of yourself and fight for them, actively choose the morality that was thrust upon you, and by the persuasive power of moral judgments themselves spread that morality to all you can, and crush those who disagree with you.

>>1376549
are you saying that research is never used to help form our laws? (are laws never based on ethics or what?)

>>1376570
I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about ethics, science doesn't give us a meta-ethical theory, it only gives us data we can use within a meta-ethical theory. In choosing which meta-ethical theory to subscribe to we choose the outcome, the science is essentially irrelevant, because you can still answer the normative question either way depending on how you answer the meta- question.

>>1376585
In general, no laws are not based on ethics, they have ethical systems that are built around them, justifying them ex post facto, but ultimately its just a pragmatic and moral code based on the whims of society and the necessity of maintaining order.

>>1376597
moar like laws are designed to manipulate sweeping economic factors in order to maintain solvency for the dominant class amirite? Laws are for control, not for protection or the progress of society. Society's progress was made by voluntary agreements, or ascensions, but laws as a false emanation from the original agreements are just like the demiurge is to the godhead in gnostic systems...

>serious discussion itt

>>1376577
Both of your statements contradict each other. If you believe that people can be persuaded by moral arguments and you also believe that morality is subjective, then what does a moral argument consist of? "I feel like someone shouldn't be able to publish a guide to pedophilia more than you"?

Can't I say that "I feel like someone should be able to publish a guide to pedophilia more than you"?

"Have not prisons - which kill all will and force of character in man, which enclose within their walls more vices than are met with on any other spot of the globe - always been universities of crime? "by Peter Kropotkin

>>1376645
A moral argume nt can consist of whatever we want appeals to authority or emotion, logical fallacies or just outright lies since we're not debating anything with factual value we're under no obligation to be factual only persuasive. Though in point of fact even the simple assertion " x is wrong" carries coercive power especially en masse. In such debates we do not strive to uncover truth but to create it.

>>1376743
Ok, I completely agree with you.

In that case, your arguments have yet to appeal to me emotionally. Try harder.

>>1376782
Well then I should mention that you don't go into a debate expecting to convince the other person, unless they're just ignorant, and don't yet have an opinion formed, you go in trying to convince the audience. Even if you're so much better than the other person and dissect all their arguments perfectly, usually all that will happen is they'll, having at some level personally identified with their position, get defensive and feel you're attacking them personally. So they'll retreat into unassailable certainty.

Ultimately my goal, should be to convince passersby to this thread to weight my assertions better than yours. Even if it doesn't outright convince them, the cumulative effect over a large enough number of people can be significant.

Possible tactics include making you look foolish in some manner, associating you with advocating child rape, or some other unpleasantness. Or just samefagging up this thread so it seems like popular support is on my side. Anything like that, basically classic republican political tactics.

i just saw the author on tv with handcuffs on.

/lit/, i love you guys 100 posts and not a single use of the word "moralfag"

>>1376831
>Possible tactics include making you look foolish in some manner, associating you with advocating child rape, or some other unpleasantness. Or just samefagging up this thread so it seems like popular support is on my side. Anything like that, basically classic republican political tactics.

LOL, >>1376552 was my first post in this thread. To be honest I thought that this thread would turn into what was mentioned above (this being 4chan). It's good to see that there are sensible people here who can have sensible discussions. I still disagree but I really like how this thread turned out.

From what I understand, our disagreement comes down to how we look at the problem: I look at the problem from the perspective that controlling what information people can and can't distribute is worse than the possibility that a few pedophiles might be more educated in their trade. You look at it and see that the prevention of certain information from being distributed is an acceptable price to pay in order to reduce the sexual mistreatment of children.

All further arguments that we each choose to make will be attempts to make the other see the implications of their viewpoint.

>>1376992
>All further arguments that we each choose to make will be attempts to make the other see the implications of their viewpoint.

I meant to say:
>...attempts to make the other see and admit the implications of their viewpoint.

>>1376992
How many child rapes is a minor limitation on free speech worth too you? People are willing to fight and risk death to save children from horrors, from Darfur, to Auschwitz, to Haiti. If a man can be justified in risking his life to stop such acts, then why would you not forgo the most minor aspects of free speech rights.

The slippery slope argument is so often brought up, but I see no reason why, we can draw the line wherever we choose, why does it matter if the line exists at zero or at child endangerment? If there is nothing of social value to be gained the increased risk of children being traumatized, and injured at the hands (we can only hope its just the hands) of pedophiles.

Everything in the world is a give and take, we give up the freedom to stab people to protect ourselves from being stabbed. A book dedicated to the art of child abuse, is of value only to child abusers, banning does nothing to limit the freedoms of people who don't want to write rape books.

But that's just me, I believe freedom of children to be secure in their persons is more important than some minor whim of mine. People all have their own metaethical theories, I can't disprove you're theory that a child being raped is equivalent to you not getting to read some poorly written self published book.

>>1377035
For some reason it is saying that part of my comment isn't allowed to be posted, so I put it in image form.

>>1377090
Awesome, I told you my tactics of associating you with advocating child rape, would grant me victory.

Thanks for accepting defeat graciously.

I'm familiar with the incident.

Guy makes a pedophilia for dummies guide, complete with drawings, and how NOT to hurt the kids in the process.

Florida gets butthurt that this guy likes to make kids' buts hurt, and have investigators buy an autographed copy from him.

They claim this violates Florida's 'Obscenity Laws' (read as restriction of free speech) and are trying to get him extradited to Florida.

Nobody's arguing that this guy should get the Nobel Prize for literature. I actually think him more of a new-age Nobokov...

The point though, is he didn't do anything wrong. He wrote a book. That's it. Sure, prosecute him for the acts that lead to his know-how... but not the book itself.

The Turner Diaries (KILLJEWSKILLNIGGERKILLTHEGOVERNMENT) is still sold, like 15 years after the fact, and it's completely legal, why shouldn't this be?

Where do we draw the line on socially a 'no-no' and full on illegal?

i said what what? in the butt?

How is this book a danger?

Stupid fucking parents not taking good care of their kids is a danger.

>>1377090
You know, i don't want to be too nit-picky, I understand where the confusion comes from but its "for all intents and purposes".

>>1377225
>How is this book a danger?

Pretty much this, except in a different meaning of the phrase, I have been reading the comments made in this thread and the debate on the whether or not this guy should be arrested. However, I have not seen one excerpt from this book, much less an overview on what it actually says. And since 'you can't judge a book by it's cover,' I feel I should reserve judgment until I at least get an overview.

This is 4chan, I know that at least one of you guys don't have it.

Now, I imagine that the guy has to have a vulgar mind in order to write (and apparently draw) something so crass and unsettling like that. And to put such an attention seeking title on the cover would require the man to be an idiot. I cannot at all feel sympathy for this individual's situation...

...THAT BEING SAID, what if this book can be used for the sake of prevention? People often say that thinking like a criminal is a good protective measure, couldn't the same apply here?

Furthermore, I find the idea that a child in my family can be persecuted for writing or drawing something that is "offensive" to the majority more chilling then the idea that he or she might be molested. Why? Because the latter is preventable as long as I remain vigilant, the former is harder to stop.

And finally, isn't the authorities in Florida kind of overstepping their bounds?

Hmm, bump? bump.

Sorry, dudes.
But the guy was writing a how-to for pedophilia which included the best ways for the kid to lie to his parents about having a relationship with an old creepy man who was fucking him in the ass.

Just as a how-to guide on committing genocide is illegal in most countries, so should how-to guides on how to fuck my kids.

>>1376213

>>1376156 here, I was being serious.

>>1377864
I have nothing against how-to books on suicide

>>1377864
Don't just make up extreme examples. Provide proof if you want to be believed. Sex with kids =/= genocide

>>1377898
Yeah you're right sex with kids is way worse than genocide.

>>1377898

If you fuck enough kids and leave them sexually maladjusted, you just might commit genocide on a long enough time line.

>>1377922
I don't know, Hitler seemed to be okay with both.

Free speach is dead

prepare you anus's fiction writers of /lit/

>>1377925
That is one hell of a hypothetical. This discussion isn't about whether or not molesting children should be legal. It is about whether or not someone should be arrested for writing 'obscene' literature. Don't act like this is such a simple case, what may be decided in court may end up affecting generations of writers. After all, who would write about a certain subject matter if you may be imprisoned for it.

I understand that what this guy is writing about is immoral from the viewpoint of most people, but should we be able to restrict freedom of the press if we don't like what they are writing about? Or should we, God forbid, close the book?

>>1377946
>After all, who would write about a certain subject matter if you may be imprisoned for it.

Have you studied any history at all?

>>1377947
Yes I have, and history teaches us that censorship and threat of imprisonment discourages all but the most eccentric and apathetic writers. But things have changed, mass media is feeding a hysteria that encourages emotional impulse rather than logical thinking. And we did not develop pragmatism just to revert back to tribal thinking.

News outlets are cashing in on mob mentality because a mob is easier to sway then a single person, so as long as you yell loud words. Why do you think that so many pundits yell these days? It riles up a primal emotional response of the audience and allows them to pitch what they want to sell during the commercials more easily. Such sensationalism also moves newspapers and magazines.

It is the same kind of vulgar smut as the book in question, it is just molded a different way.

I don't believe this man is a good person, I doubt he is even a vaguely likable person. But under federal law, and our constitution, he has done nothing wrong. And I do not want freedom of speech to be compromised just because people have an unfounded fear of such slimy little perverts. That would be a true discredit to our children.

OH AMERICA, YOU SO FUNNY.

HOW'S YOUR ENTIRE NATION AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY BEING ANALLY-RAPED BY A COUPLE VOLUNTEERS FROM WIKILEAKS GOING?

>>1378150

This. Punish him for the crimes he has done, not on suspicion that he may do them. A lot of art is erotic AND features children. Should we arrest people who visit Florence to look at such art? Should we punish an artist who makes this art?

Picture related. It's one of the most famous sculptures in history: the first classical nude since Roman times. See that feather stroking his inner leg? It's erotic and features someone certainly not over the age of 18.

By the way, if this sculpture had never existed, humanity would probably be in a shitter place right now. Seriously.

>>1378170
How's it going? For men like me, who simply wants to watch the world burn, it feels pretty good.

Isn't openly asking for the book and then prosecuting him for sending the book just open and shut entrapment?

also pdf where

>>1378442
Yes it is, but law enforcement does this shit all.the.damn.time. Police near the Tampa area aren't the most politically correct group of law enforcement in this country. Of course, they're worse in Miami.

Living in Florida what I've always taken away from law enforcement from every encounter with them I've had is that they are incredibly autophobic. Even more so than new-age yuppies, which is no small feet by any means.

I remember one time I rolled through a yield sign near my house, literally right next to my house, and a cop pulled me over.

He proceeded to tell me in the span of 20 minutes how what I did was wrong, I was wasting his time and how I will just do it again because I live near the sign. His face was bloodshot red with anger, and I was just apologizing the entire time.

It's a fucking yield sign, I stopped for a second then rolled through like any sane person.

what it boils down is this. is the author being arrested for writing a book, or for touching a child inappropriately? the author isn't a registered sex offender. has no record whatsoever. books are art no matter how artless it seems sometimes. this is the realm where people can say or do whatever they want since we can't do it in everyday life.

this book is a reflection of our reality. this book exists because a man was willing to write it, and perhaps others willing to read it exist. i say we jail them if they're criminals of child abuse, otherwise we have to leave it alone. like i said, this book is a reflection of reality, and to deny this book is to deny a part of our world. books, music, and art of any kind are the arena where these things should be allowed to exist. no one is physically hurt in the process of writing a book, nor reading one. the best argument against it is that it can potentially help pedos. we can't ban shit because of what it MIGHT do. sane people are supposed to be responsible. if you don't feel you are, you're either insane or simple as you probably have no capacity to create art, much less understand it. art is truth in all its forms. however, lies are part of our world too.
i admit this is an extreme example that will test people. but whatever. supposedly the book has two stories where child/sex abuse happens.

>this book is a reflection of our reality.

Is art a reflection of reality or is reality a reflection of our art?

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAH

So I've been thinking. Naked pictures of kids are bad. What about stories talking about naked kids?

>>1378854
>Is art a reflection of reality or is reality a reflection of our art?

art can influence reality, but reality is always an influence in art. even in fiction. even if not practical at least emotionally. think about it before you wax rhetoric, dumbass.

>>1378887
that's the thing. pornographic images are certainly wrong. it causes physical harm to the child who isn't responsible enough to make decisions for him or her self. a book on the other hand involves no physical harm to anyone. its all speculation.

this just in: author found with crude sketch of baby-tornado swirling furiously around his erect penis~

>>1378885

>implying "reality"

>>1378854
Does cocks go into your anus or does your anus go into cocks?

>>1378885
>art can influence reality, but reality is always an influence in art. even in fiction.

My point is that reality is shaped by art. That is to say, for example, that our conception of what romantic "love" is, is shaped by art. We get into habits of perceiving reality in a way that is influenced by art/culture, so that art isn't so much a reflection of reality but a reflection of our artistic comprehension of it.

>>1378914
here is a definition since you're retarded.
>reality - n. - The quality or state of being actual or true. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual.

>>1378921
well my point is that reality (/existence) will go on *with or without* art. however, art cannot go on without reality. as in my earlier post i agree that reality can be influenced by art. the potential for that is always there.

i disagree with this:
>art isn't so much a reflection of reality but a reflection of our artistic comprehension of it

do you mean our emotional take on it? because that is part of our reality too. there is nothing "outside" our reality. that's why i said reality inspires fiction too. it's always a source for all art whether it's recognized as such or not. directly or indirectly if only on a purely emotional level. however, there is no art if there is no reality.

a potential argument could be, what about an insane person? with a misconstrued perception of reality? well madness is a part of our reality too. so is the nature of the author's work in op's post. it's not pretty. but its real, and fortunately its only a book and not the actual process of hurting a child. as i said, my only issue is whether people are being physically hurt or not. if not, then it's not a problem if it pertains to something in the art realm.

>>1378972
>my only issue is whether people are being physically hurt or not. if not, then it's not a problem if it pertains to something in the art realm.

i would like to extend this to say "hurt against one's will" if they're an adult.

>>1378985
Oh fuck off with that PC jargon crap, we're on 4chan. We all know what's meant is harm, not sexual play.

>>1378990
That's not PC man.

>>1378972
It's difficult to separate art from reality enough to say that "art is a reflection of reality."
If you think about it an artist doesn't recreate reality nor does he often want to, he borrows and twists things from it. The image that the artist wants to create is influenced by art that he has absorbed in his past, art that has also altered his interpretation of reality.

>>1378993
It's the newest extension of it, this need to correct people's language to reflect some small group's behaviors or attitudes.
>S&M and fetishes have people hurt each other with consent, you should make sure to add that because they exist!
It was obvious the post meant harm.

>>1379008
So did you mean physically hurt or harm?

And what about forms of S&M that are not okay?

You're just blundering about the whole thing.

>>1379008
that's not really obvious arguments can and have been made opposing S&M pornography.

the real problem is how our culture has made pedophilia into such a big deal. there is no inherent reason (if there is not physical injury) that kids should be so ruined psychologically for life. we've just convinced ourselves and them that that's how it should be.

plenty of cultures in the past and present have children and young teens active sexually both in the normal course of life and as part of a sex trade. they got on fine, because they didn't have every single voice of authority screaming at them how terrible their experience was and how evil that monster was.


i suppose ill probably be called a pedophile for this; believe what you like (nothing i can say will stop you)

>>1379043
You're an idiot and probably a pedophile.

>>1379005
hey, CheezPoofz. i deleted my post where i called you a dumbass. i don't think you are one. i think i'm from the 'all art is imitation' school.

>If you think about it an artist doesn't recreate reality nor does he often want to

i disagree. the more i think about the more i think an artist merely imitates reality whether he wants to or not. if an artist sees a tree and paints a spaceship he isn't painting a tree anymore. he is painting a reflection what the tree inspired him to paint. that process is part of reality too and ought to be painted.

>altered his interpretation of reality.
all art is interpretations of reality. a reflection of the human process to absorb information and express it, whether it be coherent or absurdly so.


>>1378990
how is it pc? and sexplay can be harmful can't it? i meant both if it's against a person's will. don't tell me what i meant.

>>1379048
i like your argument, you've completely changed my view on the subject
you should be king or something, with those smarts.

some people argue that socrates wasn't a real fellow, instead it was a name of a IRL troll who thinkers of the time used to start talking business about gods and politics, same happen with Homer, this has been a problem with censorship and freedom in general but along the ages we have realized the true fact that is nobody can control or stablished limits of freedom of speech, art forms are above us and will happen even if we weep or moan or send them judges to anally rape us.

>>1379060
EH. decided to use my tripcode so i'm not confused with other anons.

>>1379062
>implying I didn't think it futile to try and change the opinion of someone who bases their whole argument on "facts" they've pulled out of their own arse, but get satisfaction calling them an idiot.

>>1379043
Yeah, I think the same. Especially about children that have reached puberty.
It doesn't make sense that organisms that have become fertile should be psychologically damaged from having consensual sex. And societies before have practiced pederasty, which leaves me to believe that the damage is mostly delivered by the surrounding culture than the act itself.

It's funny how supposedly "progressive" and "liberal" people have such medieval views about the evilness of these monster peadophiles too. It beckons back to witch hunting. I thought we were supposed to have a scientific approach to things these days, as opposed to emotional. Either way, I think if peadophiles are to be condemned for their decadent desires then so should all people with rape fetishes and other perversions, because they aren't exactly pillars of purity either.

>>1379083
>implying being psychologically damaged isn't an evolutionary trait

>>1379043
>plenty of cultures in the past and present have children and young teens active sexually both in the normal course of life and as part of a sex trade. they got on fine

Seriously, you're arguing that pubescent prostitutes "got on fine", I mean ignoring any possible trauma from the sex itself, being a prostitute is not exactly a good life, especially historically. Being a child prostitute means you're more vulnerable, and less likely to see any actual money out of it. Which is why historically most child prostitutes have been sex slaves.

What possible justification could have for the assertion that they "got on fine"?

Even if they're not prostitutes, and its just in the "normal course of life", is "got on fine" really the standard we want to set for our children? "All I can ask as a father is that my daughter have at least as fulfilling a life as a 14th century peasant's wife?" Jesus man, that's the most absurd attempt at justification I've ever seen.

>>1379083
agree. people should feel however way they want without fear. and this includes art and the op's book. art should be the realm where people can feel however they want.

>>1379043
>the real problem is how our culture has made pedophilia into such a big deal. there is no inherent reason (if there is not physical injury) that kids should be so ruined psychologically for life. we've just convinced ourselves and them that that's how it should be.

First of all, [citation fucking needed]. Second off, its pretty much impossible to prove anything definitively and causally in psychology. I can't say for sure whether or not children can grow up feeling good about having been abused, lead happy fulfilling careers with healthy personal relationships and not be more inclined to abuse children themselves. Hell, a decent fraction of non abused children don't. But ultimately it'll take a hell of a lot of evidence before I ever believe it.

Finally, children cannot consent to sexual activity, young children lack the capacity to understand consequences and know the social significance of sex, and even teenagers, especially young teenagers, are too easily swayed into following adult authority.

>i disagree. the more i think about the more i think an artist merely imitates reality whether he wants to or not. if an artist sees a tree and paints a spaceship he isn't painting a tree anymore. he is painting a reflection what the tree inspired him to paint. that process is part of reality too and ought to be painted.

Well, my point was that he isn't exactly painting the tree but a more idealized version of it that he is inspired to conceive of. However, if you are even calling the process of inspiration and the image that he receives from it as "part of reality" then I have to disagree with you on different grounds. If literally *everything* is "part of reality" then *nothing* can be a "reflection of reality", because to be a "reflection of reality" implies that you are something other than reality-- an imitation of it. You cannot reflect reality if reality includes everything, because then even the reflection and the reflective material becomes a "part of reality" and you are just left with what you started with.

>all art is interpretations of reality. a reflection of the human process to absorb information and express it, whether it be coherent or absurdly so.

My point was that art that you have experienced alters your interpretation of reality, so that if you were to create art of your own it would just as much be influenced by the art you have experienced as by "reality".

>>1379099
>Finally, children cannot consent to sexual activity, young children lack the capacity to understand consequences and know the social significance of sex, and even teenagers, especially young teenagers, are too easily swayed into following adult authority.

this makes sense. so what's your opinion on op's post? just curious.

>>1379083
>Yeah, I think the same. Especially about RAPING children that have reached puberty.
>It doesn't make sense that organisms that have become fertile should be psychologically damaged from BEING RAPED. And societies before have practiced RAPE, which leaves me to believe that the damage is mostly delivered by the surrounding culture than the act itself.

>It's funny how supposedly "progressive" and "liberal" people have such medieval views about the evilness of these monster RAPISTS too. It beckons back to witch hunting. I thought we were supposed to have a scientific approach to things these days, as opposed to emotional. Either way, I think if RAPISTS are to be condemned for their decadent desires then so should all people with OKAY THIS IS REDUNDANT NOW and other perversions, because they aren't exactly pillars of purity either.

Raping a fertile woman, of whatever age, is evolutionary beneficial, there's no reason for psychological damage, after the fact I mean what would be the point of that? She still needs to function. Lots of societies have practiced rape, of slaves, peasants or at least just not tried very hard to prosecute it or punish it.


Seriously though what reason would there be to be traumatized by fucking anything from an evolutionary perspective? what does trauma do for you? That's not an agument for why its good? You suggest that because society induces the trauma, we should endeavor to change all society? why? Fuck that, I'm fine with it.

>Finally, children cannot consent to sexual activity, young children lack the capacity to understand consequences and know the social significance of sex, and even teenagers, especially young teenagers, are too easily swayed into following adult authority.

We punish the child for having sex. Those "consequences" you talk about are things that we ADD to the act, not consequences that are inherent to the act itself.
We punish the child and say that he couldn't have consented to the sex, because he didn't know what the punishment was.

I can illustrate this point by asking a simple question: at what age do people gain the magical ability to form "consent"? The answer is that we DEFINE when they can. We IMPOSE the age that they can now form consent, just as we IMPOSE the idea that they couldn't form "consent" beforehand. It's not the child's lack of awareness, it's our own doing that makes them unable to consent.

We aren't disgusted with the sex BECAUSE the children can't form consent. We are disgusted by the sex and THEN we justify it after the fact by saying it's because children can't form consent.

>>1379122
>Seriously though what reason would there be to be traumatized by fucking anything from an evolutionary perspective?
It exists, therefore there must be one. Same with suicide and depression. If it was not evolutionarily beneficial in our ancestral environments, we wouldn't have it.

killeveryoneinthisthread.jpg

>You suggest that because society induces the trauma, we should endeavor to change all society? why? Fuck that, I'm fine with it.

So you are basically saying it's alright to traumatise people and make them feel guilt/shame.
Lol, weren't you the one trying to claim the moral highground?

>>1379138
>evolutionary psychology
oh my god shut the fuck up

>>1379138

>It exists, therefore there must be one. Same with suicide and depression. If it was not evolutionarily beneficial in our ancestral environments, we wouldn't have it.

That's fucking stupid. The only attribute you can't logically apply this construct to is extinction, and supposing that every attribute besides extinction is beneficial to an organism's survival is ridiculous.

>>1379135
>We punish the child for having sex.
>punish
Where has this come from?

And that made little to no sense overall.

>>1379117
I support it, the arrest that is, with the onset of the internet pedophiles have more and more been able to unify, come together share their trade. I don't think that's a good thing. Before the days of the internet child porn was relatively rare, these pedophile circles couldn't just email images, hell you needed a darkroom to develop photos cause you're not taking them to walmart or wherever we used to develop photos.

Allowing open sale of the book is too much a green light, lets them get too much legitimacy too much comfort. I prefer them disenfranchised, otherwise our risk of going the way of decadent Rome increases more and more, although many comparisons to the Roman empire are already very apt. I consider a tactical act of culture war, rather than a free speech issue. Of course if I were on the other side I would feel opposite, and frame it as a free speech issue.

I'm not a Luddite I support the technologies that make the pedos' lives easier, and I recognize that its no longer feasible to fight the pedophiles ability to distribute photos and videos and meet online (don't get me wrong we still need to try, its just not going to have a high enough success rate). If distribution increases sufficiently we'll have generations of internet users exposed to CP from a young enough age to enculture an apathy towards it (at best, at worst developing the paraphilia themselves plausibly not saying I have any scientific or anecdotal evidence that viewing CP during sexually formative years will lead to any such thing), when that happens we might have problems. The only solution is to increasingly marginalize and shame pedophiles, harsher penalties, and perhaps some light thought crime (I'm not kidding it might help, I'm might not be necessary so I'm calling that by ear).

>>1379148
Extinction is not a trait held by specie/gene/whatever, so that makes absolutely no sense.

>>1379145
And all I was trying to do originally was point out how stupid it is to say "evolution stuff must be good".

>We aren't disgusted with the sex BECAUSE the children can't form consent. We are disgusted by the sex and THEN we justify it after the fact by saying it's because children can't form consent.

Yeah, just like rape, right? We're disgusted by every form of sex that happens to occur without consent, and THEN we justify it after the fact by saying it's because one party didn't consent. /sarcasm (if only because it's 4chan, lol)

>>1379151
It comes from this:

>child has sex
>everyone acts as if the most horrific thing imaginable happened to the child, regardless of how the child felt about it. The person that had sex with the child is made out to be a demon which possessed and violated the child.

>the child is fucking traumatised

There's your punishment. We make it into a shameful thing, or mangnify the shame involved a thousand fold until it crushes the child.

>>1379101
>because then even the reflection and the reflective material becomes a "part of reality" and you are just left with what you started with.

its why i think of art as having some kind of truth about it no matter what. even if it's a lie, it's a representation of a lie that truthfully existed.

how can reality be a reflection of art? it seems like you were making it a chicken or the egg thing, and reality definitely came first. the only knowable thing (IN MY OPINION I GUESS...)is that reality can exist without art. all else is debatable. so much of life happens without the consideration of art. on the other hand, we relate our experiences with art in reality. without doing so, there can be no connection. and thus, i think art is a reflection, imitation, and expression of reality. not the other way around.

a guy can like the way another man is painted and want to look more like him. and there are examples where art can influence reality. but reality is the only source for inspiration for art. there exist no other...but maybe we define certain words in different ways.

>>1379153
No matter what, children will be raped--would it not be better to "exorcise" these demons or at least not try to repress them from sight? I believe it is much better to first, strengthen community awareness about our responsibility to protect our children (also, the fact that children are a marginalized group doesn't help--it may not make sense to say this but ultimately children are layed by the side for the satisfaction of our permanent adolescences) I will finish this up: Pedophilia is a psychological aberration, it should be out in the open because it must be treated--if we make it illegal and drive them further to the margins, as you suggest, there is no hope of treating it on the individual or social level. We must let some things in, in order to rectify them.

>>1379158
You are conflating two ideas. On one hand we have a physical confrontation which involves one party trying to forcefully have sex with the other while the other struggles to get away, and on the other we have "children are too stupid to consent properly", even if the child feels that he/she wants to have sex.

>>1379138
that's not how evolution works, it doesn't make perfect beings, it makes creatures that will outperform their competition and natural obstacles.

Humans likely only ever feel any trauma within a social system, and possibly only a social system with sufficient leisure time. I've heard of cases in Africa where women have to leave refugee camps and get the water daily even though they'll be raped, because if their husbands, fathers and sons go they'll be killed. The women were very matter of fact about it, no signs of trauma, they weren't thrilled about it, but it was a fact of life for them that they didn't have a way out of and hell you still need water.

Trauma is only present when you have nothing better to do. Evolution doesn't care about what you do once you've already managed to survive.

For selling and writing the book, no.
They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this nigga fucks kids, then I say lock his ass up.

>>1379159
This is partially true--I was raped as a child and I know that personally I don't hate myself for it but it would be nice if I could talk about it blatantly without horrifying people--there are many things in my life like this and it is totally alienating (much worse than the original act)

>>1379159
You've made up a relation in between events in a childish attempt to prove your own point. Which is frankly dumb. Children are traumatised because of abuse of trust, not because others view an act as wrong.

On top of that, even if that post was true, that is not a punishment in anything but a metaphorical sense.

>>1379166

The point is that consent is a fundamental part of our culture, especially with respect to sex, and the fact that we apply this idea to people considered generally unable to consent is perfectly reasonable. The disgust is part of the reason it's illegal, sure, but if we're going to be picky, we must also admit that the consent thing is part of the disgust AND the illegality.

>>1379142
They wouldn't be traumatized without the pedophiles, who knew the consequences of their actions and understood how society works. You cannot set out to intentionally change society sufficiently quickly, you know what society will be like tomorrow even if you don't know what it will be like 50 years from now. In that way it is akin to natural law, you don't blame chemistry for a man being shot. Society is not to be blamed for the trauma that originates with the pedophiles act, even if the trauma would not occur in some other society (a fact I'm not convinced of), the pedophile knew what they were doing and the consequences.

>>1379164
It's more that "art influences art", just as much as "reality influences art." So you could even say that "art is a reflection of previous art".
Reality and art are too intertwined, we think of reality in artistic terms. "Love", "heroic", "brave", "evil", "war", "rival", "beautiful", "ugly", etc. are influenced by art and conjure artistically influenced images when we use them, and they are words that we use everyday to describe our experiences, our reality.

>>1379169
Really, you want the act not to horrify people? are you sure of that? cause it seems like a person who had undergone child rape would prefer that people not think its all okay. Do you want other children to be raped, or does that idea seem like it should be horrifying?

>>1379153
there is a review on amazon about a book on pedos that said in a test done to test sexual attraction, and that most people felt some degree of attraction (if only mildly so) and that the government tried to censor these findings. what if this is true?

it seems like you're trying to damn it before enough information is gathered on it. i'm not saying we should ever be okay with child abuse. BUT, we need to know more about what is normal, about what we should and shouldn't fear. because if anything what is shown to us as normal is fucked up enough already.

really, your culture won't be worth having with the route you're taking.

>>1379167
>it makes creatures that will outperform their competition and natural obstacles.
Correct, that's exactly what that post is saying

>Humans likely only ever feel any trauma within a social system, and possibly only a social system with sufficient leisure time.
Wrong. The rest is hearsay, and idiotic hearsay at that.

In an ancestral environment, if a person lost a hand or limb (physical trauma) they needed to be able to cope with their new situation quickly, in order to survive. The response to such trauma is the rapid growth of new connections between braincells.

However, emotional trauma results in things like posttraumatic stress disorder. Physiological reaction is the decrease in the connections between braincells. This helps to "repress" memories, and allows people to move on with their lives.

tl;dr, you're a joke who needs to lurk evolution moar.

>>1379171
>Children are traumatised because of abuse of trust, not because others view an act as wrong.

How is the sex inherently an "abuse of trust"? If the child wants to have sex and the person they supposedly trust does too, then how is trust being abused?
This is what I am talking about: AFTER THE FACT, the child is told that the paedophile "lured" and "tricked" him into having sex, and that it wasn't really the child's choice. Only then will the child feel really betrayed, provided that the child had some desire to have sex in the first place.

>>1379180
Well, what I meant was I should be able to give an account of my life without receiving the snivelling shit obligatory apologies--I don't know, personally with my experiences I became stronger and I don't respect those who wish that such things just simply would not happen. It's entirely childish and if we aren't able to openly discuss every dimension of pedophilia, we will never do anything to diminish it. On one hand, I regret that people think I should be sad for what happened and on the other I despise them for their well meaning ignorance. Sex is no emergency, as monte cazzazza said. I can't make the choice for others as to whether they would want to be raped as children, but I have taken it into my personality and it doesn't haunt me like others seem to think it should.

>It exists, therefore there must be one. Same with suicide and depression. If it was not evolutionarily beneficial in our ancestral environments, we wouldn't have it.

Statistics are filled with the effects of random chance. Part of natural selection includes the high probability in some attributes that are harmful, but not enough to cause extinction, and harmful attributes that develop simultaneously and inextricably with helpful attributes.

For example, cancer isn't an evolutionary tool to cull the old; it's a by-product of our cells' reproductive system. Cancer doesn't serve shit, but it's there because of something that does. Saying that cancer "must have been helpful in our evolutionary history" totally wipes out the connection with the genes. Your statement is basically "attribute exists, therefore helpful in evolutionary history, u mad". Natural selection (at least in the scientifically irrefutable sense) applies to genes and genes only, everything else is an emergent by-product.

>>1379173
Yes, but now you are saying that there is nothing wrong with paedophillia and just that society makes it into something wrong. Which was kind of my point to begin with.

>>1379165
proper psychotherapy should be able to mitigate damage to the affect psyches, hopefully.

As for the pedophiles themselves, until an actual suitable treatment for pedophilia exists, it doesn't matter, once a working treatment exists, then we as a society will say "oh my god its a real mental disease, we're so sorry pedophiles come on and we'll help you". Until then, we need to keep them from finding moral support to whatever extent we can. People are much less likely to take action if they're alone. Keep them afraid, keep them self-hating, keep them down.

>>1379189
What other sense of right and wrong do we have except for in context of a society?

>>1379185
>>1379185
>but I have taken it into my personality and it doesn't haunt me like others seem to think it should.

Yeah, this is another interesting point to make. People want these victims to be traumatised so that it will prove them right about the horror of the sex that they so despise.
That is cruelty. They don't care so much about the victim as they do about justifying their own hatreds.

>>1379195
The context of the individual. Not everyone in a society agrees on right and wrong.

>>1379195
the context of society is forever changing. think of segregation. women's rights. the way we treated japanese americans during ww2 and not german americans.

>>1379196
You actually get it--there is a power relation and a social stigma inherent in the classification of pedophilia. I understand we can't simply do away with laws protecting people from rape, but the way our culture addresses sexuality in general is possibly the most crippling repression that exists today. Power has us by the balls

>>1379198
yeah but if individuals made the rules then we'd have anarchy, society makes the rules. A subjective morality is completely worthless except making peace between you and your lack of a god.

>>1379195
what other sense of right and wrong can we have other than in the context of total freedom?
>>1379194
You're just mistaken, people are not less likely to commit abhorrent acts while alone--they are in fact probably more likely to do so--we have to bring it out into the light..you seem to think that pedophilia is a kind of "mob mentality" it is not..if we were to integrate it and accept that it exists in society, that pedophilia is part of what humanity actually is (not some idealized form) we can then address it and if you like "solve" the problem--marginalizing pedophiles will not stop them because they are about as marginalized as can be already.

>>1379187
You've made a few unconnected points there. The statistics thing kinda goes nowhere. Also, the genes thing is reductionist, and holy shit Evolutionary Psychology is an actual field of research, you should look it up sometime.

Anyway, cancer is an element of cell regeneration. It is not a trait on its own; one cannot be had without the other. It's like our big brains taking up so much energy, it's worth it because of the increase in resources and adaptation it allows.

I can see another part of the argument you're trying to make. Let me put it this way:
Sickle cell anaemia exists. It would appear at first to be a negative trait. However, it is only a few genes away from being a trait that increases resistance to illnesses like malaria. So, again, overall it increases the organism's chances of survival in its environment.

>>1379208
agree. and continuing to demonize it will probably make those abused more scared to come forward. not the other way around.

>>1379184
Someone in authority acting in such a way that they do not consider the consequences for others, particularly those they hold power over.

>>1379212
That is totally true, like I said earlier it would be better if I could actually tell people I lost my virginity at 6 and they would know that I was saying it in honesty, to give a true account and not think that I was traumatized (and if I am traumatized, I wonder who are these people who are in no way traumatized?)

>>1379204
>confusing society and state

>>1379217
Why would you mention when you lost your virginity?

>>1379208
>what other sense of right and wrong can we have other than in the context of total freedom?

Pretty much any cause that one is horrible.

>>1379223
you've never been asked? it's like a common question in my life. Once i said "when i was six" to some kid at a party and laughed. he laughed but then i said "no, I'm serious" then she was quiet.
>alpha as fuck
(seriously though, people need to be free to not despise certain circumstances of their lives)

>>1379225
you are now aware that you are ultimately, hopelessly free. lrn2existentialism

>>1379249
Oh, so you're 15. Those questions get old fast.

If you're still being asked that in your late teens, you're hanging with the slow group bro.

>>1379250
I am aware of that, that's one of the reasons freedom is a worthless rubric for ethics, not the only one, because we can still speak of certain practical freedoms, and get into the troubles of utilitarianism.

>>1379252
This example is from when I was 15, I admit it doesn't come up much now (except in intimate sexual relationships--when it still occurs. Right now i'm dating someone who was also raped, so it's not so bad) but, yeah, your judgement is ineffectual and this whole thing is a tangent.
>>1379256
Freedom is not a worthless rubric for ethics, because, you're not taking into account how it creates an exacting responsibility for individual actions. There will always be consequences for our behavior, so that, whatever we legislate or moralize will at best be an approximation of our ethics, utilitarianism is a fine word to justify certain actions but in the end it was just a choice made to satisfy a certain desire, or a certain material necessity within the moment.

>>1379265
Holy fuck, how do I know human nature so well??

>>1379265
I am taking that into account, taking personal responsibility for your actions and their consequences and hell the whole of creation, doesn't really offer a rubric to judge the actions of others as moral or immoral, other than your judgement be in good faith.

>>1379265
+15 Dark Side points awarded

>>1379181
>there is a review on amazon about a book on pedos that said in a test done to test sexual attraction, and that most people felt some degree of attraction (if only mildly so) and that the government tried to censor these findings. what if this is true?

Well I can't say anything without knowing the test parameters, for instance how it tests for sexual attraction, and whether or not that attraction could be essentially be not towards the actual child but rather context leading the mind to wander to other things. but without the experimental design its worthless. At a certain level one would expect primary sexual characteristics to have some sort of effect (at least as sexual maturity approaches), though ideally that should just be a proxy or symbolic effect.

>it seems like you're trying to damn it before enough information is gathered on it. i'm not saying we should ever be okay with child abuse. BUT, we need to know more about what is normal, about what we should and shouldn't fear. because if anything what is shown to us as normal is fucked up enough already.

hahaha, no normal is irrelevant, I speak only of shaping human beings through their environment. So what if it were "normal"? wouldn't matter, I'm not attracted to children, so I actively seek to shape society to my whim, I assume the pedophiles will do the same. But I have public support on my side, I expect to win. Morality has no truth, so moral truth doesn't matter, only the best moral fiction.

>really, your culture won't be worth having with the route you're taking.

Culture has no "worth having" because we do not choose it, we are enculturated into it. Why fight against culture, it defines us we would not exist as sentient creatures without culture, for meaning is ascribed intersubjectively.

>>1379275
I guess the point is that the rubric for ethical actions are totally arbitrary and part of "good faith" is admitting that moralizing tries to create ex post facto meaning for actions.

>>1379153

Back in the 1950's everyone had a darkroom so in your twisted mind, they would all be suspect of pedophilia.

You may mean well but the fact that you know nothing about what you're talking of is why no one should listen to you.

>>1379332
You misread me, I said that a pedophile needed to a have darkroom, not vice versa, please keep your logical fallacies to yourself.

>>1379324
Moralizing only creates ex post facto meaning, if the moral claim is supposed to possess objective meaning, but since it doesn't that's not a concern.

i think he should be prosecuted.

this thread is more /new/ than /lit/

>>1379352
What is the point then? Forgive me if I missed it. you believe that morality/ethics are established for the purpose of controlling individual behavior? to what end? I don't think it is even possible, at best an illusion of control.

>>1379360
The censorship of books and writers being arrested is very /lit/ if you ask me. antisage.

>>1379363
>What is the point then?
What's the point of anything? I am a human subject to moral beliefs, those beliefs by their nature compel me to oppose those actions that are bad and support those that are good.

>Forgive me if I missed it.
You are quite forgiven.

>you believe that morality/ethics are established for the purpose of controlling individual behavior?
Not established for the purpose, there is no intent in their primitive creation. They simply provide a structure for humans to support one another and come together socially, like a pride of lions that ostracizes a lone crazy lioness that killed some cubs (I was watching national geographic).

>to what end?
Again that's a pretty deep metaphysical question, but none that I know of.

>I don't think it is even possible, at best an illusion of control.
Why not? "herd" behavior is a part of all social animals, we group together, we form solidarity, have stupid rituals that bind us through shared pointlessness. The emotive value of moral judgement is sufficient, in large part, to approach consensus.

>>1379379
technically an anti sage is like a double sage, there are twice as many posts counting against the threads bump limit, but none of them contributed anything worthwhile. Sure you bumped the thread but /lit/ moves so slow that wasn't a big issue.

>>1379391
not true

>>1379395
why not, we are now up to like a 5x sage

>>1379384
I just don't see the convergence..I see human beings making choices and it is completely arbitrary--I think if human beings have a virtue it is only to tell stories and storytelling is the foundation of morality, because it takes a mundane probably repeated action which was called for by material necessity and portrays it in a way that is pleasing. I think I understand what you mean, almost a Jungian type of thinking, but I don't believe in the morality of human beings--I think it is just another story.

>>1379398
no, i dont get you. im the only person that's saged?

>my face when I'm a pedo but will never molest children because I know that it will ruin them for life and I don't want that for them.

Never gonna tell anyone about it though.

>>1379401
pay me £2000 & i'll suck your dick, im underage in america

>>1379305
>Why fight against culture, it defines us we would not exist as sentient creatures without culture, for meaning is ascribed intersubjectively.

i've already gone over this. culture doesn't always define us. culture is a forever changing ideal. slavery, segregation, then full assimilation is what we went through as a part of our history. if culture purely defined us, we would never have changed would we? but we considered it, thought it was wrong, then changed our culture. what about nazi germany? that was their popular culture for a time too. you know it has changed, right? i'm not saying that pedophilia is right, but i'm saying that people have a right to write about it in however way they want. this isn't a book with pictures, or with real events that had real children involved. the man was expressing himself even though it seems grotesque to you. he has a right to be grotesque.

>I speak only of shaping human beings through their environment.

who are you to govern what our artistic climate is or isn't? i know men who share your ideology and they all have the hearts of would-be tyrants. i would spit on you if you said this shit to me in person.

your problem is that you assume its your opinion versus pedophiles. well that's where you're wrong. the basic questions is, was the author arrested for writing a book, OR for illegal acts with children? the author is not a sex offender. he wrote a book. there is nothing else to add or detract.

to sum it up. you sound like a shyster.

>>1379400
yes, but all the sage does is increase the post count without bumping, but bumping is basically irrelevant on /lit/ so as long as the post doesn't contribute to the thread its basically equivalent to saging.

>>1379408
yeah but you said it was a 5x sage when i had only saged like twice.

>>1379406
>culture is a forever changing ideal. slavery, segregation, then full assimilation is what we went through as a part of our history.
Sure it does, the culture changes by changing influence of the individuals within it in a marxist sort of sense I suppose changes in economics can have effect or simple population of some subculture or another can have net impacts, culture isn't homogeneous after all. Interactions between cultures and within cultures all can lead to change.

we would never have changed would we?
I disagree, see reasons above.

but we considered it, thought it was wrong, then changed our culture. what about nazi germany?
No, the culture, changed with us, we didn't deliberately change culture, that's stupid. Just as humans learn from a succession of experiences, so to can we speak of "geist" evolving in the same manner, as a convenient abstraction not a metaphysical reality.

>who are you to govern what our artistic climate is or isn't?
A human being, a member of any given society, who can wield all the influence of intersubjectivity just like anyone else. We are all tyrants within our own beliefs, and we shouldn't seek to be anything else.

>i know men who share your ideology and they all have the hearts of would-be tyrants. i would spit on you if you said this shit to me in person.
I honestly wrote my last sentence without reading this one, weird.

>to sum it up. you sound like a shyster.
Aww, that hurts coming from a supporter of child rape, it really does.

>>1379410
that's because the responses were off topic, and didn't add anything to the discussion, so they just increased the post count without doing anything beneficial, essentially saging,

>>1379424
oh yeah. everyone who supports free speech advocates of child rape...

just stfu. now you're trolling as you're certainly not being logical.

>We are all tyrants within our own beliefs, and we shouldn't seek to be anything else.

uh huh. because tyrants who try to control versus tyrants who try to restrain from control are the same.
again...stfu. pic related.

as far as culture goes, we can agree that it does change. personally, i feel that it is infinitely debatable how it does so. although i agree that there is a certain inertia involved, i totally feel that people have a hand in shaping it. but that's where we differ and will continue to i suppose.

>>1379424
oh dude. i thought of the perfect response for you to my post here: >>1379440

you should totally say, "what about the freedom to deny the freedom of others? don't you believe in freedom?"

then i can post the circular reasoning pic again.

>>1379440
>oh yeah. everyone who supports free speech advocates of child rape...
Hey you make a personal attack on me I respond in kind

>just stfu. now you're trolling as you're certainly not being logical.
You just keep going, probably all that time spent with children impaired your argumentative abilities

>uh huh. because tyrants who try to control versus tyrants who try to restrain from control are the same.
again...stfu. pic related.
The division is arbitrary and unjustified except in terms of some metaethical code that you cannot support. All moral judgments are tyrannical, though you who stand by the moral value of freedom as the tyranny absolute, are far the greater tyrants, than those of us who support the petty tyranny of the individual.

>>1379592
>You just keep going, probably all that time spent with children impaired your argumentative abilities

i'm not a pedophile. i don't own pedophilia. i don't advocate it at all. i never did in any of my posts. your argument is invalid, sir. and only shows how ignorance distorts reality. you're a fine example here. you considering me one is like me calling you stalin. i've never called you that...yet.

>The division is arbitrary and unjustified except in terms of some metaethical code that you cannot support. All moral judgments are tyrannical, though you who stand by the moral value of freedom as the tyranny absolute, are far the greater tyrants, than those of us who support the petty tyranny of the individual.

so, those who advocate control, and those who advocate no control have a difference that is arbitrary? nigga, you just went full retard. see below.

>All moral judgments are tyrannical
tyranny involves an exercise of power. my opinion is that there should be no exercise of power in the art realm as long as no one is physically harmed. people have a right to offend. do you have many friends? any that share a different opinion than your own? i do.

>>1379696
>my opinion is that there should be no exercise of power

if you tell me this is an exercise of power in itself i'm going to pull that circular reasoning card again.

i'll sage this shit because when i scroll through the thread most of everything that is worth saying has already been said. its obvious that this is such fringe subject matter that people feel passionately about on both sides -and for good reason. i doubt most people who entered this thread had their opinions changed when they left it.

>>1379696

>tyranny involves an exercise of power. my opinion is that there should be no exercise of power in the art realm as long as no one is physically harmed. people have a right to offend.

Ultimately even the statement "x is good" or "x is bad" is a coercive act, an exercise of power as you would say. Speech is force, not separate from it.

>>1379853
a= old tv shows
b= penguins
c= black and white

a=c (old tv shows are black and white)
b=c (penguins are black and white)
a=b (old tv shows are penguins)
a=/=b (old tv shows are not penguins. the correct answer)

this is faulty reasoning. advocating control and advocating less control are both advocating a perspective, however, they are not necessarily the same.