Author of Pedophile Guide arrested across state

[aurik]

Sure is a lot of dumb in this thread.

Also I bet a lot of states don't want to bring charges because the likely end result is that the breadth of those laws will be found unconstitutional.

[guartz]

derpherp teh constitution.

[archibaldcrane]

Also I bet a lot of states don't want to bring charges because the likely end result is that the breadth of those laws will be found unconstitutional.

Yep.

[Maguspk]

If you're going to say you meant that, there are other analogies you could draw that don't involve homosexuality; you could be heterosexual without participating in the "practices." Dumbass. Actually, the analogy works with a hell of a lot. It astounds me how often homosexuality and pedophilia are brought up in the same sentence.

Homosexual practices aren't analogous in any way with pedophilia, and they're not even the "closest comparison." One is between two consenting people, the other is not. Consequently, heterosexuality is just as "comparable" with pedophilia as homosexuality.

A more apt analogy would be between pedophilia and bestiality. Both are between non-consenting parties.

Attraction to prepubescent children and attraction to same sex, I'd say they are comparable as sexual preferences. No need to be defensive.

[Kuya]

If you're going to say you meant that, there are other analogies you could draw that don't involve homosexuality; you could be heterosexual without participating in the "practices." Dumbass. Actually, the analogy works with a hell of a lot. It astounds me how often homosexuality and pedophilia are brought up in the same sentence.

Homosexual practices aren't analogous in any way with pedophilia, and they're not even the "closest comparison." One is between two consenting people, the other is not. Consequently, heterosexuality is just as "comparable" with pedophilia as homosexuality.

A more apt analogy would be between pedophilia and bestiality. Both are between non-consenting parties.

Attraction to prepubescent children and attraction to same sex, I'd say they are comparable as sexual preferences. No need to be defensive.

Gays get very butthurt when you compare pedofilia to homosexuality, as shown above. They don't care if heterosexuality is compared with pedofilia though. That's because the comparison is apt. In fact, comparing homosexuality with pedofilia is probably more proper than comparing it with heterosexuality, given that homoness is still taboo (while pedodelights are also taboo, but more so) than heteroness.

They just don't like the comparison because pedos are icky and unfashionable. GOD MY OH

edit: also bestiality involves non-human participants, meanwhile pedoness and the homo-gay involves fleshy apes

[Kuya]

derpherp teh constitution.

I really think you have no grasp of the law. Actually, if you're an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) this makes sense.

[EternityEnd]

Attraction to prepubescent children and attraction to same sex, I'd say they are comparable as sexual preferences. No need to be defensive.

Of course they're comparable in that vein; however, heterosexuality would be equally comparable to pedophilia if the only correlation is that they're sexual preferences.

To say that homosexuality or homosexual acts are the "closest comparison" to pedophilia is just ludicrous, though.

[Day]

[Kuya]

So defensive about comparisons to pedofilia.

[Day]

Actually that seems like a fairly reasonable thing to be defensive about.

[Ashmada]

So basically, you can't.



According to your definition, silent protests or sit ins do not constitute a form of speech. Furthermore, you proved my point thoroughly. Who determines when an action is speech or simple expression? You/Oxford. Thank Mr.Tyrant.

Those damn dictionaries are such tyrants. How dare they codify language?

I let you have your silly semantics debate out of pity and you still managed to produce such stupidity.

It was a toss up between ignorant and stupid. In your case, it's the latter.

XD. The imbecile calling the kettle black.

Empirical cases and you'll see that books have inspired people to believe they can get away with acts; subsequently, they commit crimes. Is it a guarantee that people will commit crimes after reading the book (Assuming that we know the contents as such)? No. However, the costs of banning the book might not outweigh the cost of its potential danger.

Great data. Oh, wait, you're just throwing the word "empirical" with nothing to back it up.

All social interactions as a matter of irrational.

That's not english. That's cryptic, grammatically absurd (needs a verb somewhere) pseudo-intellectualian.
You use it a lot to hide the fact you've got no legs to stand on.

We don't need to make appeals to broad ideals when taking action. I don't know what Orwellian nature refers to, but I doubt it holds any meaning unless someone holds principles that create a dilemma when the case is brought into play. Needless to say, it's pointless.

More gibberish.

Oh, and:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Might want to get acquainted with it before accusing others of ignorance. I'm not the first to use"Orwellian" as an adjective.

Oh I get it. When I do it, it's backpeddling. When you do it, it's genuine. Clearly, we're both treated equally when it comes to listening to both sides of the argument. Right?

You've got quite a wide definition of "backpeddalling" if it includes "not validating a simpleton's assumptions and field of strawmen."

[Yugl]

Those damn dictionaries are such tyrants. How dare they codify language?

I let you have your silly semantics debate out of pity and you still managed to produce such stupidity.

Too bad your argument fails if you don't rely on semantics. The only way you could distinguish the act of murder from other acts is through the semantic defense that one is a form of speech and another is a form of expression. In short, the question remains unresolved on your end.

XD. The imbecile calling the kettle black.

I'll return this back to you.

And thanks for the nonsensical ad hominem and silly assumption.

Great data. Oh, wait, you're just throwing the word "empirical" with nothing to back it up.

I'll offer mind of a murderer as an example. Other historical examples include revolutions that emerged on the basis of doctrines. Another example might be violent attempts at restoring democracy in third world nations. These are all actions inspired by something someone read.

That's not english. That's cryptic, grammatically absurd (needs a verb somewhere) pseudo-intellectualian.
You use it a lot to hide the fact you've got no legs to stand on.

I made a typo and wrote "as" instead of "are". Is this the best defense you have to offer now?
More gibberish.

Oh, and:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Might want to get acquainted with it before accusing others of ignorance. I'm not the first to use"Orwellian" as an adjective.

I recall the book, but not the individual's name. Good memory check though. Am I ignorant of the details? No. In fact, your statement makes even less sense than it did before. If the issue is one of society viewing the act as a taboo or unfavorable, then it is not the same situation described in 1984. The entire premise of 1984 is one of minority (Government) domination.

You made your position clear before I intervened. Backpedal all your want, though.

Oh I get it. When I do it, it's backpeddling. When you do it, it's genuine. Clearly, we're both treated equally when it comes to listening to both sides of the argument. Right?

You've got quite a wide definition of "backpeddalling" if it includes "not validating a simpleton's assumptions and field of strawmen."

So you have a wide definition of backpeddalling then. Anything significant you want add?

[miokomioko]

If you can't see the relation between 1984 and someone being arrested for writing a book, I weep.

[guartz]

okay can we stop this right here? Pedo is nothing like homosexuality. Pedo is a form of rape. Nobody is born with rape genes, lets get over it please.

[Ashmada]

Too bad your argument fails if you don't rely on semantics. The only way you could distinguish the act of murder from other acts is through the semantic defense that one is a form of speech and another is a form of expression. In short, the question remains unresolved on your end.

/facepalm.
First: Yes, you can, in an abstract construct, conceive murder as a form of expression but in practicality, that's just being obtuse and pedantic. That kind of argument belongs in a 12yo's attempt at philosophy.

Second: it's the semantics debate that was pointless (if you were smarter, it would've taken 10s to run it through your head, not 3 posts to explain it to you), not the semantical difference between "speech" and "expression."

"Freedom of speech" is more restricted than "freedom of expression" and I (as well as most other intervenants in this thread) used one and not the other for a reason.

Introducing an act with grave consequences in a debate about verbal or written expression is being obtuse, deliberately or not.
I apologise for first thinking it was deliberate, I realise I was wrong on that.

I'll offer mind of a murderer as an example. Other historical examples include revolutions that emerged on the basis of doctrines. Another example might be violent attempts at restoring democracy in third world nations. These are all actions inspired by something someone read.

You alleged empirical evidence, I'm expecting studies, not wild conjectures.

I made a typo and wrote "as" instead of "are". Is this the best defense you have to offer now?

Defense?
Your sentence was meaningless, there was no malice on my part. Was I to guess (i.e. assume) you meant "are" instead of "as"?
Replacing "as" with "are", though, it still doesn't mean anything:

All social interactions are a matter of irrational."

Irrational what? Needs a substantive near that adjective.
Feel free to play the grammar nazi card again if it tickles your fancy, but no one can put meaning on that sentence without making assumptions.

So you have a wide definition of backpeddalling then. Anything significant you want add?

Cute. I'm not the simpleton making wild assumptions and erecting strawmen by the dozen, your "NO U" fails quite badly.

[Correction]

Splitting quotes on sentences and sentence fragments in a tit for tat pissing match should be a bannable fucking offense.