|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| It wasn't Amazon that suppressed free speech. A bunch of people got together and pretty much bullied Amazon into pulling the book. It's like suppression of free speech by mob mentality. |
But think of it this way, we each are members of a communal society. By participating in this society we accept that there are certain minimum standards and things we agree to. Certainly I think pedophilia falls under one of those near-universal things. If you choose to reject society's norms, well can you really be upset that society has rejected you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
I was incensed when I read about this. Well, incensed and embarrassed.
Yes, his book was disgusting. Yes, Amazon, a private retailer, had every right to refuse to sell his book. But for the government to step in and arrest him for writing a f%^*ing book... that is far more disgusting than the actual book. |
Yes, your latter point is the crux of the issue.
As far as the Amazon is concerned, it is such a big operation, that more responsibilities attach to it, sort of like the phone company. They cannot just arbitrarily decide to whom to give service. |
Nonsense. Amazon is a private entity. As such it has every right. If Mr Greaves wishes people to read his book he can put it on the Internet. Or find another bookstore.
They are certainly not obliged to distribute anything they do not wish to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
I was incensed when I read about this. Well, incensed and embarrassed.
Yes, his book was disgusting. Yes, Amazon, a private retailer, had every right to refuse to sell his book. But for the government to step in and arrest him for writing a f%^*ing book... that is far more disgusting than the actual book. |
Yes, your latter point is the crux of the issue.
As far as the Amazon is concerned, it is such a big operation, that more responsibilities attach to it, sort of like the phone company. They cannot just arbitrarily decide to whom to give service. |
Nonsense. Amazon is a private entity. As such it has every right. If Mr Greaves wishes people to read his book he can put it on the Internet. Or find another bookstore.
They are certainly not obliged to distribute anything they do not wish to. |
Rubbish. So you are saying, in effect, that if they don't want to sell books of black authors, for example, they'd not be obliged to?
MCI and Verizon private companies, but they cannot arbitrarily deny someone service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Rubbish. So you are saying, in effect, that if they don't want to sell books of black authors, for example, they'd not be obliged to? |
Of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
I was incensed when I read about this. Well, incensed and embarrassed.
Yes, his book was disgusting. Yes, Amazon, a private retailer, had every right to refuse to sell his book. But for the government to step in and arrest him for writing a f%^*ing book... that is far more disgusting than the actual book. |
Yes, your latter point is the crux of the issue.
As far as the Amazon is concerned, it is such a big operation, that more responsibilities attach to it, sort of like the phone company. They cannot just arbitrarily decide to whom to give service. |
Nonsense. Amazon is a private entity. As such it has every right. If Mr Greaves wishes people to read his book he can put it on the Internet. Or find another bookstore.
They are certainly not obliged to distribute anything they do not wish to. |
Rubbish. So you are saying, in effect, that if they don't want to sell books of black authors, for example, they'd not be obliged to?
MCI and Verizon private companies, but they cannot arbitrarily deny someone service. |
That would be a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the United States. Title II would be more controversial, I think, if not for the history of slavery and Jim Crow.
Private vendors may discriminate based on content, but not on race or ethnicity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pk_00
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| I'm ok with this. |
Censorship? |
It's not censorship. It's a private company. They can sell whatever they like, or not sell whatever they don't like.
edit: as long as it's not based on race or ethnicity, as the previous poster said.
Do you guys rail against blockbuster video not selling certain titles too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
I was incensed when I read about this. Well, incensed and embarrassed.
Yes, his book was disgusting. Yes, Amazon, a private retailer, had every right to refuse to sell his book. But for the government to step in and arrest him for writing a f%^*ing book... that is far more disgusting than the actual book. |
Yes, your latter point is the crux of the issue.
As far as the Amazon is concerned, it is such a big operation, that more responsibilities attach to it, sort of like the phone company. They cannot just arbitrarily decide to whom to give service. |
Nonsense. Amazon is a private entity. As such it has every right. If Mr Greaves wishes people to read his book he can put it on the Internet. Or find another bookstore.
They are certainly not obliged to distribute anything they do not wish to. |
Rubbish. So you are saying, in effect, that if they don't want to sell books of black authors, for example, they'd not be obliged to?
MCI and Verizon private companies, but they cannot arbitrarily deny someone service. |
They can deny the work of any black (or otherwise) author they wish. What they can NOT do is deny said work on the grounds the author is black.
See how that works? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Private vendors may discriminate based on content, but not on race or ethnicity. |
OK, thank you for showing that the following statement is false.
| Quote: |
| They are certainly not obliged to distribute anything they do not wish to. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| But think of it this way, we each are members of a communal society. By participating in this society we accept that there are certain minimum standards and things we agree to. Certainly I think pedophilia falls under one of those near-universal things. |
Then you think wrong.
Cambridge University jurist and psychiatrist Richard Green is the man most responsible for eliminating homosexuality as a diagnosis from the DSM in the 70's. In his article "Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?" published in the December 2002 issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior, he explains why:
| Quote: |
HISTORICAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
Several quotes illustrate the range of acceptance of sexual contact between children and adults:
"The diversity of sexual behavior in a cross-cultural perspective is amazing to those who assume that their own society�s moral standards are somehow laws of nature. Yet it is a fact that almost every sort of sexual activity : : : has been considered normal and acceptable in some society at some time: : : . Man-boy relationships are no exception to this rule of diversity: : : . Although they are roundly condemned by many segments of Western society as inherently abusive and exploitive, there have been (and still are) many societies that do not share this viewpoint." (Bauserman, 1997, p. 120) Substantial differences are found between the legal, social, and biological definitions of pedophilia. In Western society, definitions of childhood have been based largely on arbitrary dates, milestones marking progress into adulthood. Biological change may not correspond closely to these, and are insignificant in social and legal definitions. (Howitt, 1998, p. 17) At this point in our history, a very real conundrum exists for the researchers of adult/child sex. The problem is reflected in the question of what truly marks the point beyond which sexual interaction with a child is pathological and not just criminal. (Ames & Houston, 1990, p. 339)
In the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), puberty is the boundary for pedophilia. The younger person is to be prepubertal. But, the designation of puberty as the bright line age boundary for erotic attraction to be a mental illness is arbitrary. It does not consider the mental development of the child. Further, puberty varies between individuals and may be changing over generations. And, for sexual proscription, it is not the marker necessarily grounded historically or cross-culturally. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| It's like suppression of free speech by mob mentality. |
I don't think so. I think it's the venerable use of shame as a means of social policing. I know, "shame" has gotten a bad rap in recent generations, and that's a shame. It can be a very effective tool, as it was in this case.
Censorship is only evil when it comes from the government. Outside of that, there are some very good reasons to censor certain information in certain contexts. The raising of children comes to mind, for one.
Oh, and space bar, wouldn't it be a hoot if some pedophile who read this book used its how-to lessons to molest your kid, your sibling, your niece or nephew? And if it turned out that s/he bought the book from Amazon before they sensibly decided to pull it? That would be a double hoot and a half. Don't you think?
Oh, and just as an aside, let's do please draw a distinction between pedophilia and pederasty. There's a difference. Look it up, if you're interested. The former is completely vile; the latter is somewhat of a more squishy concept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| Oh, and space bar, wouldn't it be a hoot if some pedophile who read this book used its how-to lessons to molest your kid, your sibling, your niece or nephew? And if it turned out that s/he bought the book from Amazon before they sensibly decided to pull it? That would be a double hoot and a half. Don't you think? |
If you are going to maintain that molesters learn their craft from books, you have just lost all credibility.
And since you are misrepresenting the book, your credibility is now negative. In contrast to what you say he has written,
| in actuality, Philip Greaves wrote: |
| The best advice I an give pedophiles/pedosexuals is this: recognize that masturbation is your best friend and avoid becoming actively involved with minors of any age. |
| Quote: |
| Oh, and just as an aside, let's do please draw a distinction between pedophilia and pederasty. There's a difference. Look it up, if you're interested. The former is completely vile; the latter is somewhat of a more squishy concept. |
The difference is puberty, which itself is not a very fine line and proceeds unevenly along multiple axes. Read what Richard Green says about it above. So I am really interested in how that goes from "completely vile" to "more squishy" and then presumably to "just fine" (or would that be "less squishy") when it involves two men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
Rubbish. So you are saying, in effect, that if they don't want to sell books of black authors, for example, they'd not be obliged to?
MCI and Verizon private companies, but they cannot arbitrarily deny someone service. |
Discriminating because of race is different than discriminating because of content.
If Verizon wanted to shut down services for a phone sex line, I'm guessing they could. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| Cambridge University jurist and psychiatrist Richard Green is the man most responsible for eliminating homosexuality as a diagnosis from the DSM in the 70's. |
I would appeal to a different authority if I were you. The complete removal of homosexuality from the DSM was a terrible mistake. Egosyntonic homosexuality? Sure. But egodystonic homosexuality is very much a disorder, and the fact that the DSM no longer specifies it as such is ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Private vendors may discriminate based on content, but not on race or ethnicity. |
OK, thank you for showing that the following statement is false.
| Quote: |
| They are certainly not obliged to distribute anything they do not wish to. |
|
Only it hasn't shown anything of the kind. Like I said they are not obliged to distribute anything they do not wish to. What they can't do is say something like "We're not distributing it because you are black." But they can say something like "We feel that this does not meet our clientele's needs at this time." Which would be a legally acceptable excuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| Cambridge University jurist and psychiatrist Richard Green is the man most responsible for eliminating homosexuality as a diagnosis from the DSM in the 70's. |
I would appeal to a different authority if I were you. The complete removal of homosexuality from the DSM was a terrible mistake. Egosyntonic homosexuality? Sure. But egodystonic homosexuality is very much a disorder, and the fact that the DSM no longer specifies it as such is ridiculous. |
By that criterion, ego-dystonic heterosexuality should also be included but isn't. Is that ridiculous?
In any event, anyone who complained to his psychiatrist that he was uncomfortable with his sexuality is likely diagnosable with a paraphilia, Paraphilia NOS, Adjustment Disorder, or some other category, or on Axis V, and thus could still receive mental health services for it. Completely removing the term homosexuality from the DSM went a long way in eliminating stigma for millions of same-sex attracted people (even if Richard Green disagrees with the way it was removed). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
