Pedophile Code of Conduct taken off Amazon.com

• Hiccup wrote on 2010-11-12 05:58
  That was the point lol
• Finnea wrote on 2010-11-12 06:00

  Quote from Hiccup;212840:

  Only to you, and if you have a problem don't come and read it. Problem solved.

  
  
  Using this logic this book isn't a problem at all. Just realized that.
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-11-12 06:01
  You really wanna keep this going?:smoke:
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-11-12 06:02

  Quote from Finnea;212865:

  Rudeness aside I think this is pretty intresting. Freedom of speech should still apply here though, and I just love how pedophiles are represented in the media. Fun.

  
  
  I feel like there shouldn't be books or "guides" on teaching how to get in a child's pants though. haha
  
  You'd have to manipulate them to do that and you have an advantage since you're older and wiser. haha
  
  Getting into a child's pants is different than being romantically attracted to a teenager. One is moreso rape/abuse/manipulation, the other not so much. You know?
• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-11-12 06:03
  Barns and Noble featured a book about breaking the system, having sex with lots of women, and getting out of jail. It was a hilarious book, but I dont see how its too far different from this book.
  
  Another store featured The Alphabet of Manliness, which is about as much of a hate book as you can get, granted its for all for humor.
  
  If I wrote a book about how to rob a store efficiently without making mistakes, would I be censored?
  
  Its cases like these that make decision making so hard. And of course, nobody really likes to see books like these sold, but we still have to consider the first amendments. Where does it draw the line? To preserve the freedom of speech there will be people who support sales of this book whether they like it or not.
  
  Thats my 2 cents. I'm not even going to start getting involved in this touchy topic, especially since I'll end up playing for the other side just to show people who are whining about pedophiles that there is indeed some logic behind the decision.
  
  And with that, I'm not opening this thread again.
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-11-12 06:04
  On top of that the book is basically describing how to do it "legally", saying its mutual because of the "friendship" with the child. It's more manipulation and brainwashing then "friendship".
  
  Ew ninja'd by kitae
• Finnea wrote on 2010-11-12 06:05

  Quote from Phunkie;212873:

  I feel like there shouldn't be books or "guides" on teaching how to get in a child's pants though. haha
  
  You'd have to manipulate them to do that and you have an advantage since you're older and wiser. haha
  
  Getting into a child's pants is different than being romantically attracted to a teenager. One is moreso rape/abuse/manipulation, the other not so much. You know?

  
  
  Well the book itself is rediculous, but it shouldn't be taken down solely because it's socially unacceptable. However I suppose pedophilia is simply rape as far as the media is concerned.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-11-12 06:05
  It's like saying, how to rape a girl.
  
  1. lure her in with gifts and chocolates.
  2. slip a drug into her drink.
  3. rape her.
  
  That's just wrong. You know?
  
  
  Pedophilia isn't rape. We've been through this before. But the way it's described her, it just seems like manipulation.
  
  1. Buy the little kid his favorite toy, his favorite ice cream.
  2. Take him to the zoo, take him to his favorite animal.
  3. Take him to your house.
  4. Have sex with him.
• Byte wrote on 2010-11-12 06:07
  Meh, a book is a book, it should be sold to whoever wants to buy it not taken off because someone has a problem with it.
• Finnea wrote on 2010-11-12 06:08

  Quote from Phunkie;212879:

  It's like saying, how to rape a girl.
  
  1. lure her in with gifts and chocolates.
  2. slip a drug into her drink.
  3. rape her.
  
  That's just wrong. You know?

  
  
  But is there anything wrong with saying that?
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-11-12 06:09
  ^nobody wants to be raped
  
  They were gonna boycott Amazon. A boycott = loss of business, and a lawyer did say taking off the book is completely legal as to the constitution. And it wasn't just a few people it was a good hundred thousand around the world
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-11-12 06:09

  Quote from Finnea;212883:

  But is there anything wrong with saying that?

  
  
  A book on how to lure girls and rape them? Absolutely.
• Finnea wrote on 2010-11-12 06:10

  Quote from Hiccup;212886:

  ^nobody wants to be raped
  
  They were gonna boycott Amazon. A boycott = loss of business, and a lawyer did say taking off the book is completely legal as to the constitution. And it wasn't just a few people it was a good hundred thousand around the world

  
  
  I still think the "legal" removal is up to the various aspects in the trial. Lawyers are sneaky you know.
• Byte wrote on 2010-11-12 06:11

  Quote from Finnea;212883:

  But is there anything wrong with saying that?

  
  
  Well, stating something like that. There is. Rape != love. Rape = Forcefully having sex without consent. Telling people how to pick up a child and rape him/her is wrong. Telling someone how to love a child is okay.
• Finnea wrote on 2010-11-12 06:13

  Quote from Phunkie;212888:

  A book on how to lure girls and rape them? Absolutely.

  
  
  I don't think so. The act that is associated with the book is wrong. The book could just as easily be warning women about things that could happen, rather than telling men/women how to rape them. Although that doesn't apply to the OP as well.