“What’s all this fuss I keep hearing about endangered feces? Now, that’s outrageous!! Why are feces endangered? How can you possibly run out of such a thing? Why, just look around you, you can see it all over the place! Besides, who wants to save that anyway? My goodness, where would we keep it?! It’s dangerous, especially in the summer!! Then it could really hit the fan!".
I would only ban things which objectively and provably create damages/harm.
Wrong. The argument is perfectly rational.
What do you gain by splitting up society into smaller tribes and groups which you then play against each other?
Do a positive spin on that please. Im listening.
And lets drop the kindergarten narratives please. Slapping words like “propaganda” onto something is nothing more than an admission of having no arguments.
The ”well your toy is stupid” line of thought is something people should have left behind around the age of 10.
Correct. The question would be who is the one with a simplistic view of the world.
The dude who thinks that racial awakening minorities will result in a good outcome and just like communists we gonna all sit by the fire hand in hand singing kumbayah, or the dude who thinks the inevitable outcome will be each group looking out for their own interests and the entire narrative gonna merge into a race war.
You don’t even understand that @pseudoai was playing dumb for comedic effect. No wonder that you don’t understand CRT.
Once again, why is that good enough for you? Wouldn’t it be much better if you were to develop solid critical thinking skills?
I apologize that i did not take explicit note of the LGTV BBQ+ style joke.
Im so devoid of intellect for not responding in accordance.
Critical thinking is different from worshipping an ideology.
Are you under the impression that the Catholic church is teaching critical thinking?
CRT is about as critical as Antifa is anti.
Your lines of thought are juvenile if not childish.
Once again again, why is that good enough for you? Wouldn’t it be much better if you were to develop solid critical thinking skills?
Meanwhile Amazon already bans an academically-published book, The Culture of Critique, by Dr. Kevin MacDonald. Clearly Amazon thinks this very well researched, university-published book by a tenured professor is more dangerous than a book promoting pedophilia.
Wonder why?
The book burnings in 1930s Germany Third Reich were also things on pedophilia.
So much of history sold to the general public is a lie.
That is a tough one. You discuss two things, banning and destroying. I will treat them separately.
I am generally against banning. Unfortunately, as often happens, we can find a person that “walks on the limits” and makes people uncomfortable to support general principles. I am pretty sure such a book violates several laws in many countries. Being in a platform like Amazon, accessible to all audience and ages, makes things even worse. Thus, for that book I would agree with an exception and ban it from general circulation.
I will not go though so far as suggesting to destroy it. The issue with the latter is who decides which book should be destroyed. Only the author and the publisher should have the right on such move. If we allow governments to destroy one book, we open the door for further elimination of litterature. Humanity lost too much knowledge through the centuries by book burning, let’s not repeat these actions. Even for books that are so deranged (Hitler’s book is an example, since it still exists).
My general conclusion: Out of circulation is fine, but destroying it no, because it opens Pandora’s box.
Postscript: Perhaps police can make use of this, to study the mentality of pedophiles. This can help on finding them.
OK.
Has anyone actually read the book?
This would be the only way to give an honest critique.
Having been on Amazon and readily available someone must have given it approval.
It appears it was only taken down because of the pressure from the public? or hopefully a dismal lack of sales.
“Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions,” the company said.
Greaves, (the author) who was a nurse’s aide until he retired because of a disability, said he was not encouraging pedophilia through his book, but, pointing to the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, the Washington state teacher who had an affair with her student, said he believed it was possible.
Im pretty sure thats because you lack the required IQ to properly understand or process them.
Thought i’d say this because you seem to think that ad hominems achieve or prove something
Once again: The sh-t you are peddling is not critical thinking. Its not even critical in it’s nature.
Criticism is not supposed to push you towards any conclusions but by definition thats what CRT does. It establishes victim and oppressor groups validating certain people and dismissing others, and on top of it, with no proper argument either
The problem is that the two things are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Thats the entire issue with this particular book. To understand it i will explain it in two parts:
Part one: The “Rind et Al” controversy.
Rind published a study back in 1998 that argued a common sense position about sex in general: Its only traumatic if it happens against the will of the “victim”.
Regardless of being 10 year old, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 for a sexual act to cause traumatic psychological injuries, its a required for the participant to experience it AS traumatic, as something forced or non-consensual.
Rind essentially argued that in cases of children where the child itself viewed the act neutrally or positively, no form of traumatic damage has been caused.
It is “technically” a common sense position if you think about it.
When you want to have sex, you are primed to experience it neutral to positively even if your partner sucks at it.
If you dont want to have sex and its forced upon you, its one of the most invasive and traumatic experiences you can go through.
Part two: Reaction, effect and complexities
Inevitably the study has generated a nuclear level of fallout and ended with ostracizing Rind and destroying his career and prospects.
On one side you can make the argument that society as a whole turns its back on certain scientific prospects and their conclusions. Another such story would be the several people who claimed that they can scientifically and statistically prove that black people are less intelligent than whites.
On the other hand, it takes little to acknowledge that such studies would open certain doors that should remain closed.
If you accept the premise that you can have sex with children without damaging them in the process then that inevitably (at best) relativizes and (at worst) legalizes pedophilia as normal consensual sex. AND thats before we even acknowledge the VERY uncomfortable idea of those who would TRY to engage in such “activities” and FAIL in the process, resulting in life long trauma for the child.
This is not a line of thought i am very comfortable to contend with. At all. Opening this door would cause untold amount of damages.
I can accept the fact that it would happen indirectly to her idea and statement, but it would not change the fact that it would cause problems.
Same with the intelligence level of black people, which would condemn an entire “race” of people as lesser.
Conclusion/Circling back to the book/topic:
She is not wrong per say. Its “theoretically” possible under a very narrow set of circumstances, to have sex with a child and not cause any traumatic damage in the process.
HOWEVER: This is a pandora’s box statement. If you are willing to accept this premise, then it opens the door to a thousand unintended and VERY MUCH damaging outcomes, the very first of which would be that pedophile rights groups would surface instantly and they’d start their own advocacy just like LGBT ppl did.
In fact, i have no illusions whatsoever that the activist side of the LGBT community would jizz itself just from the prospect of being able to “lift up” such a very badly oppressed “minority”. It would give them employment for years if not decades to come.
As such, its both:
She is not encouraging pedophilia and “technically” its possible.
Yet if we acknowledge this fact, it would result in problems. Inevitably.
From a rational and logical position, this is the entire problem.
Its very much a grey area issue, but if you want to be consistent, then you have to accept the fact that allowing such books and narratives to exist would indeed create damages.
So while i do not condemn her or her book, personally i’d classify this as a taboo and something that should not be touched, because the consequences of it would be. First: Of no benefit to anyone. Second: Would generate a steady number of damages/damaged individuals.
Yes, this is a good example. Theory and reality do not often match. How do we define “sexual concent" on a 10 year old kid? Even if it is not traumatic at the moment of the act, it will probably cause psychological issues in the future. We are not dealing with an adult, it is a kid far from being able for mature choices.
Such “academic approaches” do not fit well the public audience. An author of such book should understand the consequences of these statements when they meet common readers. If he/she proceeds on publishing these ideas, he/she should expect large criticism and risk of damaging irreperably his/her career.
Correct. The book itself is not the issue. She is in theory, “technically” not wrong.
But the practical consequences of her idea has little to no benefits yet would result in a thousand downsides and problems.
To associate the elements of seduction, power, love, or lust that are part of the adult meanings of sexuality would be inappropriate. and cannot be interpreted as similar to that of adults in any way.
A bit of yes, a bit of no. Its true that there is a difference, but its also meaningless when you talk about an entity that is in the middle of establishing its own core values and self. Its not about the what, its about the how.
We all have a side even as grown up adults which seeks connection with someone we can resonate with, and this is something several times stronger in a child.
The factor that allows this manipulation is love itself.
The greek in example had 8 different concepts for love, and every each one of them is coveted by a human being instinctively, regardless of their age.
Whether its the love born of belonging, family, desire, friendship, selflessness or any other of its forms, we always strive for it, and that will always leave us to yearn for connection with others. Even if its in a twisted or atrocious way.
But in earnest, this… its a bit upsetting even for me to have this run through my head in relation to children, so if you dont mind i wont make a complete analysis of it.
Yep, who do you think took over after WW1 when Germany was economically decimated? That is precisely why Hitler was able to get power. I see the same thing happening in America too, in fact we are already there. The level of banksterism and cultural perversion and degeneracy, not to mention inflation too. Kinda funny the parallels.
Weimerica.
Same thing happened in Tsarist Russia with the subsequent communist revolution, the degeneracy of the Russian aristocracy.
