You got what you gave me, that's all there is to it.
I ain't mad. I find it a bit hypocritical though that you demand behavior from me that you won't show me yourself. So that's that. I'll always give back that which is given to me, if you don't like it that's your problem. You've done nothing but invent excuses to not debate since your first attack against me; that's all there is to it. You want me to show you manners? You'll have to pony up and show me some manners. The choice is yours.
LOL U mad bro?
That's fine. You don't have to grow up or behave in the manner you demand others behave. That's your choice. But I have no time for the intellectually dishonest nor those with weak resolve. As you said, other kids in the sand box.
But if you do choose to grow up and behave appropriately, come back. Till then, I'm just going to ignore your tantrum.
Well you certainly sound mad because you got what you gave...
Moderator's Warning: |
One key difference though. "The Anarchist Cookbook" and "The Poor Man's James Bond" have elements in them which could be abused but there are actual basic chemistry and physics elements contained within so they do have literary value other than malicious violent or property crime elements so that is a good example of protected speech. Molesting children is illegal in all 50 states and an abhorrent act, in a round about way "How to Molest Children" pretty much speaks to a very specific intent and there is no scientific, literary, or even societal value to it.What about the Anarchist Cookbook or the Poor Man's James Bond? Those violate incitement laws? I mean, where are we going with this. How many books do we ban? Maybe we can do an old fashioned book burning; those are always fun for the kids. Like it or not, it's just a book. You can't ban it because you think the contents are icky. If there's been no violation of law; that's that.
One key difference though. "The Anarchist Cookbook" and "The Poor Man's James Bond" have elements in them which could be abused but there are actual basic chemistry and physics elements contained within so they do have literary value other than malicious violent or property crime elements so that is a good example of protected speech. Molesting children is illegal in all 50 states and an abhorrent act, in a round about way "How to Molest Children" pretty much speaks to a very specific intent and there is no scientific, literary, or even societal value to it.
I will say though, *if* it can be proven an effective tool in it's reverse to educate children on avoidance of the predators then I guess a case could be made that the book does a good in a roundabout way but to me that is just stretching. I think the book is protected, but that doesn't excuse the act of publishing this tripe.
You have obviously never read the Poor Man's James Bond. You should check it out. Tells you how to make all sorts of human killing traps. Even has a bunch of **** on hand to hand combat. But what I don't see is the distinction you're making between one form of violence and another. Both the Anarchist Cookbook and to a much larger extent The Poor Man's James Bond are instruction booklets for revolutionaries and has methodologies for gorilla warfare and how you would approach some of it. Yeah, they do talk a lot of chemicals and bomb making, but does that mean that it now has literary value? Because you can learn to make a bomb or because it had chemistry? What if this 170 page pamphlet has basic biology in it? Does it then have literary value?
I think the only real difference between books which promote revolution and anarchy vs one which details child molestation is merely the topic of the books. While revolution may be a valid tool of the People, it is still illegal everywhere. But for some reason many more of us are comfortable with a book telling of how to make bombs and traps and ambushes than we are with one about child molestation; even though the potential harm is much greater overall in the former than the latter. And that's why we're trying to make this differentiation between the books; but they are similar and if you allow one you have to allow them all.
To me, it's the difference between ideas that would be implemented more globally versus manuals on how to perpetrate predations upon a single individual. One just seems so much more focused and full of real intent than the other does.
I think that possession of the book would be evidence, but only when linked with actual molestation, just like possession of the anarchist cookbook has been used to build cases against animal rights terrorists in some states.
Those have existed since the dawn of war, you can see deathtraps on certain episodes of Deadliest Warrior. There's a historical relevance at minimum in that. As well, anything can be lethal and most people already understand that at some basic level. It's not like this is new information that would be used specifically by those of ill intent.You have obviously never read the Poor Man's James Bond. You should check it out. Tells you how to make all sorts of human killing traps.
Can be used in other than illegal situations, for instance a surprise assault while camping, urban survival, etc.Even has a bunch of **** on hand to hand combat.
Life has an element of violence, I don't think there really needs to be a distinction. Legal violence exists and there are legal applications which can be found within either of those manuals, again; it's never legal to molest children.But what I don't see is the distinction you're making between one form of violence and another. Both the Anarchist Cookbook and to a much larger extent The Poor Man's James Bond are instruction booklets for revolutionaries and has methodologies for gorilla warfare and how you would approach some of it. Yeah, they do talk a lot of chemicals and bomb making, but does that mean that it now has literary value?
The two aren't mutually exclusive, bombs are based on multiple chemical properties and chemistry laws all of which must be met for detonation. I don't see why both aren't relevant as literary value.Because you can learn to make a bomb or because it had chemistry?
But this is not dependant on the subject matter which involves the commission of a crime.What if this 170 page pamphlet has basic biology in it?
Possibly, but again there is only one intent that can be deduced from a title such as "How to Molest Children".Does it then have literary value?
A bomb has a specific radius of effectiveness and a single use whereas a damaged child can become a menace to society without the proper mental treatment. I'd say a psychologically damaged child is much more destructive than a bomb. As well bombs usually are used for specific targets, I haven't pissed anyone off enough to have to worry about one, but a ****ed up human being? Different story.I think the only real difference between books which promote revolution and anarchy vs one which details child molestation is merely the topic of the books. While revolution may be a valid tool of the People, it is still illegal everywhere. But for some reason many more of us are comfortable with a book telling of how to make bombs and traps and ambushes than we are with one about child molestation; even though the potential harm is much greater overall in the former than the latter.
There is a vast difference between giving information that "could" be used in the two other books and that which most certainly will be used in the subject of this topic.And that's why we're trying to make this differentiation between the books; but they are similar and if you allow one you have to allow them all.
I think that possession of the book would be evidence, but only when linked with actual molestation, just like possession of the anarchist cookbook has been used to build cases against animal rights terrorists in some states.
Those have existed since the dawn of war, you can see deathtraps on certain episodes of Deadliest Warrior. There's a historical relevance at minimum in that. As well, anything can be lethal and most people already understand that at some basic level. It's not like this is new information that would be used specifically by those of ill intent. Can be used in other than illegal situations, for instance a surprise assault while camping, urban survival, etc. Life has an element of violence, I don't think there really needs to be a distinction. Legal violence exists and there are legal applications which can be found within either of those manuals, again; it's never legal to molest children. The two aren't mutually exclusive, bombs are based on multiple chemical properties and chemistry laws all of which must be met for detonation. I don't see why both aren't relevant as literary value. But this is not dependant on the subject matter which involves the commission of a crime. Possibly, but again there is only one intent that can be deduced from a title such as "How to Molest Children".
A bomb has a specific radius of effectiveness and a single use whereas a damaged child can become a menace to society without the proper mental treatment. I'd say a psychologically damaged child is much more destructive than a bomb. As well bombs usually are used for specific targets, I haven't pissed anyone off enough to have to worry about one, but a ****ed up human being? Different story. There is a vast difference between giving information that "could" be used in the two other books and that which most certainly will be used in the subject of this topic.
Huge difference, "Anarchist Cookbook" and "Poor Man's James Bond" aren't labeled "How to Overthrow a Society" or "How to Committ Violence on Others" while the title of the book in question is in fact "How to Molest Children", there isn't exactly a question of intent here.Violence has been around for a long time, along with books and instructions about it. That's sorta the point, right? You're trying to differentiate between two books because you can be ok with one, but incredibly uncomfortable with the other being legal; so there has to be a reason why one is ok and one is wrong. But the reasons which have been presented are reasons of perception and nothing more. It's not fact or measured quantity. The measured quantity is that both books contain potentially harmful information. And I say potentially harmful to make a distinction in your last sentence. It's not most certainly will be used, it may be used. Someone has to read the book and then someone has to make the choice to act out using that information.
However guerilla revolutionaries and their acts aren't as prevalent as child molesters, this is a problem.Now you may say that a punji pit could be used in some righteous manner, one which doesn't break the law. But if you put to use anything in How to Molest a Child you are automatically breaking a law. Maybe true, though the purpose of things like the Poor Man's James Bond and such is not to inform some little kid how to play a prank on their buddy, but rather as information for revolutionaries and guerrilla warfare.
Which I have already conceded.But maybe you can read "How to Molest Children" as a preventative measure as well. Know what the common sorts of tricks and whatever are so that you can better educate your children against the harm of strangers or touching or what have you. So it could have literary value right there.
I've already said the book is likely protected, my opinion is that the author is a piece of ****.Just because you don't envision a good use doesn't mean one doesn't exist, nor does it mean it's ok to then ban the book.
It's not that easy, the intent of a literary piece is the judgement of it's protected status. Anything that asserts an assassination of a political figure as of it's writing is not protected, as well....writings advocating intentional harm are not. The writer can be prosecuted and the piece can in very very extreme cases be banned or flagged.The book is never at fault, the person who makes the choice is.
Huge difference, "Anarchist Cookbook" and "Poor Man's James Bond" aren't labeled "How to Overthrow a Society" or "How to Committ Violence on Others" while the title of the book in question is in fact "How to Molest Children", there isn't exactly a question of intent here.
They could very well be named that and there would be no change in the information presented in the books. A rose by any other name.... The name is not intent, the name is a name.
I think it speaks to intent and incitement. Again, there is no way to really know without reading the rhetoric of the book itself.
Fair enough, and I don't think bans are appropriate for most things, but especially BOR protected items. I find this particular book to be completely distasteful however and it should have the dreaded "flag" IMHO.They could very well be named that and there would be no change in the information presented in the books. A rose by any other name.... The name is not intent, the name is a name. You could have called it "How to prevent child molestation" and it would have the same exact information. The title is just a title, what matters is what is in the book. The information that is divulged. That doesn't change with a name, a name is but a name. As I said, I think most of the opposition to this is made on perception, not a measured quantity.
Fair enough, and I don't think bans are appropriate for most things, but especially BOR protected items. I find this particular book to be completely distasteful however and it should have the dreaded "flag" IMHO.
Some one now needs to write a 170 page manual in how to defend your kids from molesters. There should also be a chapter on how to use the right amount of force.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?