Amazon pulls pedophilia manual after protest
posted at 1:36 pm on November 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Amazon has apparently conducted an about-face over its sales of a book that allegedly promotes pedophilia after a national outcry over its policy. ABC News reports now that the book, while still listed at Amazon, no longer can be purchased through the website after its controversial position was widely criticized by its customers. ABC earlier offered this televised report on the issue:
After defending sales of a self-published book on pedophilia, online retail giant Amazon last night reversed course and pulled the book from its Kindle store.
The electronic book, “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct,” by Philip R. Greaves II, went on sale on Oct. 28 and cost $4.79 to download.
“This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow,” the author wrote in the product description. “I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter [sic] sentences should they ever be caught,” Greaves said in the product description.
The book quickly sparked a massive protest online, with thousands of Twitter users and Amazon customers calling for Amazon to remove the book, and some threatening to boycott the company altogether until it did.
Amazon defended their decision to sell the book, which saw sales skyrocket briefly during the controversy, on 1st Amendment grounds. The online giant claimed that refusing to sell “certain titles” amounted to censorship. They insisted that their position was intended to support the personal choices of their customers.
However, as many critics immediately pointed out, Amazon doesn’t sell everything that gets published. They refuse to sell pornography except of the words-only literary kind, in either printed material or on video, “mainstream” or any other kind. That put Amazon in the remarkable position of banning printed material involving consenting adults while defending the sale of a book that purports to teach adults how to sexually exploit children. Amazon seems to have belatedly realized just how untenable that position was, both intellectually and commercially.
Besides, a refusal to sell a title does not amount to “censorship” or offend the 1st Amendment in any way. No one has a right to publication or distribution, which would involve hijacking someone else’s property to effect as a right. As Amazon so obviously proves with its anti-porn policy, sellers have the freedom to select titles with which they want to associate themselves. Only when government exercises prior restraint to stop speech, publication, or distribution does the 1st Amendment become relevant. And the protest over the policy and sale of the book is a much more apt demonstration free speech and its power than Amazon’s lame defense of the indefensible.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
The most interesting case I heard about was a 16 year old girl that took a picture of her own breasts with her phone and sent the picture to a few of her guy friends. She was arrested for distribution of kiddie porn.
I hope Jason doesn’t get too upset when he finds out that she didn’t get the death penalty.
blink on November 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM
Fully agree…however, from a fiscal conservative perspective, given the costs of feeding and caring for prisoners for however many years, is the price tag worth the return? After all, you are suggesting that one inmate is being “punished”…but in such a situation, aren’t other prisoners basically “enjoying” their incarceration? Why do we want to encourage them? Why do we want to pay for their ability to rape and torture? You end up spending a fortune on five prisoners’ incarceration in the hopes that four of them will create a nightmare for the fifth.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 9:38 AM
My spouse and I have the discussion of warehousing the undesirables vs putting them out of our misery all the time. There are so many different degrees of pedophilia. Joseph Duncan being an example of the worst, who would want his incarceration to be pleasant experience?
Dr Evil on November 12, 2010 at 10:10 AM
But by definition, his incarceration will create a pleasant experience for a rapist, or a murderer…or possibly multiple rapists or murderers. How will the families of their victims feel knowing that the culprits have a toy to enjoy while in prison, regaining the control that had been taken from them when the state locked them away?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Law of the Jungle – the pedophile steps outside of the bounds of society, they put themselves in a different realm if caught, prosecuted and sentenced “Prison Rules”.
So the pedophile takes the risk, and reaps the consequences first tier, society court system – second tier prison system.
hypothetically monkeys could fly out of your butt.
Dr Evil on November 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Awesome. Now, as I was saying, how do you feel about three or four rapists or murderers getting their jollies off, enjoying their rank of power when they’re supposed to be being punished, while we are paying for it, just so that someone who committed a crime you particularly dislike suffers in a worse way than the penal system intends?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 10:52 AM
What part of Law of the Jungle, that you have no control over don’t you understand?
What does my FEELING anything have to do with a pedophiles reality after incarceration?
Victimizers are victimized by other Victimizers while my tax dollars pay for their incarceration….hmmmmm let me check, yeah I’m good with that.
Dr Evil on November 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM
So you’re fine with the fact that for every pedophile getting raped in prison, there are a couple of murderers and rapists enjoying themselves immensely on your dime.
Just checking.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM
And that’s where it gets even more legally and constitutionally interesting – when you bring up the completely inconsistent enforcement and the widely varying standards.
I’m surprised no one has bothered to actually point out the legal definition. It’s pretty specific: to meet the definition, it must be a visual depiction of under age 18 individuals either engaging in specific sexual acts or where the depiction clearly focuses on the genitals in a “lascivious” manner.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html
That doesn’t even touch on some of the discussion above about written erotica, or drawings, or cartoons, which have their own complexities.
What most people don’t realize is that nudity doesn’t fit the definition. Hence, nudists can post all the pictures they want. And embarrassing parents can take all the bathtub and toilet pictures they want (although they should be shot for pulling them out 20 years later).
It is the “lascivious” or “sexually explicit” line that has to be crossed.
And that is where both arrests and prosecutions begin to vary so widely. There is a well-known Colorado case of a guy with a website that specifically shows 13-17 year old girls in very skimpy stuff. He was prosecuted, charged with thousands of counts of distributing child pornography.
He was acquitted on every one.
At the same time, parents continue to be arrested for bathtub pics. People have been – successfully – prosecuted for pictures that show no nudity at all, but clearly focus on a sexual depiction. And stupid teenagers get arrested for taking pictures of themselves.
And again, that doesn’t touch the cartoons and drawings, which is apparently illegal – in Australia – these days.
Its just a very strange thing. EVERYONE agrees on the obvious, bright line cases. Those are easy.
But once you leave the simple ones behind, it gets messy and stupid.
Google “David Hamilton,” for a good example. He’s made a career selling photographs of very young nude girls. And yet pictures – and even drawings – far, far less provocative lead to prosecutions. (I wouldn’t use Google Images for that search, if I were you …)
Its all just … troubling. The fair application of the law requires consistency. There isn’t any.
They showed “Pretty Baby” on HBO a couple months back. If anybody can explain how that can be on cable TV, while people should be executed for this book on Amazon … I’m all ears.
I just don’t get it.
Professor Blather on November 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM
I didn’t say that pedophilia is abhorred by society more than everything else, though it’s certainly up there.
I said that it’s axiomatic that pedophilia — and if there’s any doubt, by pedophilia I’m including both actions and inclination — is worse than being a political activist against big government, or against abortion, or against same-sex marriage.
Don’t throw around the word “stupid” when you’re the one ignoring the obvious.
Or do you really think the argument changes somehow if cannibalism or serial killing is agreed to be worse than pedophilia? Would that somehow make pedophilia better than opposing big government?
tom on November 12, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Sure, pat yourself on the back for your nuance while ignoring the fact that this book is not about any of those complicated cases. This book is about a manual for pedophiles.
On the other hand, those complicated cases do become relevant when you start thinking about changing the definition of marriage, because then you would actually have to ask the question, “Why is changing the definition of marriage to include two of the same sex okay, but changing the definition of marriage to include children is wrong.”
That question requires much more thought about the actual boundaries than simply recognizing that there’s something wrong with a book that’s about how safely to have sex with children to young to be physically ready for it.
tom on November 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Mads, how many comments are you aiming for on this thread?
You asked how I did I FEEL. I answered you, now do you think that you are the authority on what people should or should not FEEL? You think people’s feelings can be judged right or wrong or are they just people’s feelings?
Maybe you should have phrased it differently. For Instance, Do you think that convicted felons should enjoy their incarceration in any capacity? In a perfect world if they victimized anyone NO. But we don’t live in a perfect world. That’s where the Law of the Jungle comes in.
If you are ever incarcerated in the Real World vs the Hypothetical World. I want you to get back to me, and let me know how discussing crime and punishment, with fellow inmates worked out for you ;)
Hey I know, you can post it in the Green Room GRIN.
Dr Evil on November 12, 2010 at 11:24 AM
No need to change it. In many states, it requires only the permission of parents, or, mind-bogglingly, the permission of a judge for a child to marry.
Suppose the book had only one line: “Get parental or legal permission”. What would your response be?
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Thanks for saving me the trouble of wasting time responding to you in future.
MadisonConservative on November 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM
That’s hypothetical you don’t know they are enjoying raping the pedophile. It could simply be inmates establishing pecking order.
Dr Evil on November 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM
LMAO!
Dr Evil on November 12, 2010 at 11:29 AM
I suppose that would depend on what’s in the book. Is it advocating something illegal?
You’re misunderstanding me.
“So it’s not even completely true in that (or because) often social acceptance precedes legality.”
I am certainly saying that social acceptance precedes legality, and that’s why your statement doesn’t make a lot of sense. It wasn’t that correlated, otherwise the sodomy laws would have been off the books back in the 80s, or early 90s at the latest. But sodomy laws were still around just a few years ago.
Esthier on November 12, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Well, tom, I hate to break this to you, but your opinions aren’t axioms. I’m sure many people believe that murder is worse than underage fornication. Many people don’t see a difference between abortion and murder.
You obviously aren’t smart enough to understand the question about big government. Even those that abhor pedophilia can logically understand that we can’t start stripping people of their rights based on the formula of “flirting with something really, really bad.” Such formula sets the precedent of stripping rights regarding anything society suddenly (yes, suddenly, and I use the term suddenly very deliberately here) decides is really, really bad.
blink on November 12, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Why would you claim that my statement doesn’t make a lot of sense immediately after paraphrasing my statement?
Maybe I see the problem here. Legality isn’t simply defined by what is and isn’t on the books. Or would you claim that sodomy is currently illegal if a state still hadn’t changed the criminal code? And are you also claiming that no social stigma was attached to homosexuality in the 80s? I bet my grandmother would have disagreed with that statement back then. Social stigmas fade – they don’t disappear over night. Think of a natural log decay. The existing elements might take quite a bit of time to diminish below some threshold and might not ever actually disappear.
Anyway, nothing I’ve ever said implied that pedophilia would become legal at the exact same time as the social stigma began to fade.
blink on November 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM
Because that’s not your statement. Your statement is that it’s only illegal because it’s not socially acceptable. Homosexuality was socially acceptable for quite awhile before it was made legal.
In fact, people in the military still lose careers over it.
More like it’s still illegal if they’re still sending even one person to jail over it.
I’m not even claiming there’s no social stigma to it now, but the extent has changed. Since the late 80s and early 90s, we’ve been a live and let live country in regards to homosexuality. These days it has arguably less of a social stigma than smoking cigarettes.
No, but you are making a direct correlation, as though things that are socially acceptable aren’t generally illegal, or rather, that social mores drives our laws. I accept that, that’s true to an extent, but not to the extent you’re suggesting.
Pedophiles simply go beyond the law in that sense. If there were no law against it, we’d simply see more stories of fathers committing murder. Really, to suggest that our social mores could change the legal status of pedophilia is to suggest that we might one day decide rape shouldn’t be a crime. It’s possible in the way that anything is possible but no more so.
Also, sometimes laws do precede acceptance. Freeing the slaves didn’t make them equals, and the legality of abortion, even decades later, doesn’t make it any less socially unacceptable. Even many who are pro-choice state a personal abhorrence to it.
Esthier on November 12, 2010 at 2:52 PM
It’s not underage fornication if we’re truly talking about pedophilia here (which is defined by wiki as an adult or adolescent at least 16 or older, having sex with a prepubescent child at least five years younger, making even the 16-year-olds predators, not boyfriends). At that point, it’s at best, statuary rape. And I don’t think you’ll find a single person here to agree that a political activist is worse than an adult (or a teen at least five years older than a child 13 or younger) who has sex with prepubescent children. I don’t even imagine many pedophiles would agree with that.
That doesn’t mean they should be stripped of their rights, but I think we all understand what the social ladder is here. Some might argue that pedophiles aren’t as bad as murderers or serial rapists, but you really won’t find much competition, especially among those who aren’t directly harming others.
Esthier on November 12, 2010 at 3:03 PM
Your definition of “quite awhile” notwithstanding, wouldn’t you agree that homosexuality was only illegal because it was socially stigmatized? Can you give me another reason that it was illegal?
I’m not sure how this is relevant at all.
Well, hell, if that’s your definition of illegal than it wasn’t illegal in the 80′s. Unless you want to show me a case of someone being sent to jail for homosexuality in the last 30 years.
First, correlation isn’t the correct term. Causation doesn’t equal correlation. I’m claiming causation. The loss of a job might cause bankruptcy. That doesn’t mean that the two events will necessary be correlated on a time scale. Just because the bankruptcy occurred two years after the job loss doesn’t mean that the job loss didn’t cause the bankruptcy.
Second, we can take a look at your definition of “quite awhile” at some point. We can look at 1,000 years of western civilization and 300 years of American culture. When this issue is considered on such a time scale, then a decade or two doesn’t really seem relevant.
So, on one hand, you’re claiming that the law took too long to respond to the lack of social stigmatization of homosexuality, and on the other hand you’re claiming that homosexuality is still socially stigmatized to a certain extent??
Seriously, Esthier, are you capable of making any type of coherent argument about this?
Of course that’s true!!! How can you even attempt to claim otherwise?
However, it’s unlikely that crimes perpetrated on someone which nobody disagrees is a victim are likely to lose their stigmas.
This might not be the case for a crime in which the victim vehemently denies that they are, in fact, a victim. Many pedophilia crimes are crimes because the “victim” is chronologically unable to legally give their consent to certain activities. In the face of “true love” (and who is qualified to determine what is and what isn’t true love?) the case might become viewed simply as an age of consent issue and be viewed as a victimless crime – ESPECIALLY if the psychiatric community suddenly (remember, I use the word suddenly very deliberately) decides to ostracize anyone that suggests that the legally underage participant is harmed by the sexual activity.
Um, viewing a freed slave as an unequal was never illegal. Slavery became more and more socially stigmatized until it was outlawed. Anyway, I never claimed that an action becomes illegal when it becomes social stigmatized. I very clearly made a claim about this issue only being illegal because of the social stigma. Just because the same might not be true of other issues doesn’t make my claim any less true.
Again, this issue is independent of my claims, but you’re 100% dead wrong about this!!!! Are you just trying to sound silly now?
Are you seriously suggesting that abortion is no less stigmatized now as it was in the 1950s?
blink on November 12, 2010 at 3:49 PM
16 and 13 aren’t underage? Esthier, do you even read what you are writing?
If that political activist is a murder than I know I can find more than a single person.
Well then you agree with Madison Conservative and disagree with Jason Coleman (and others on here). Jason thinks that pedophilia is bad enough to warrant stripping them of their rights, and if you disagree than it’s because you don’t care about the victims enough.
blink on November 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM
I’ve never said jack or sheet about “caring for victims enough.”
Throughout this entire thread you’ve been misrepresenting others statements then playing gotcha with the statement you made up and ascribed to someone.
Binky and MadisonNOTConservative have truly taken intellectual dishonesty to new lows in this thread.
As for “stipping someone of their rights” when they commit a crime, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT IS. Society is supposed to strip rights away form the criminal through penalties, fines, incarceration, etc.
Of course now you’ll play your game and say I’m for stripping all rights from every pedophilic assault on a child (don’t deny it, you’ve done it more than once already on this thread), but I didn’t say all rights, did I.
So I fully expect both of you to pull things out of context, make up quotes, mis-characterize statements and then harp about the uber-specific hyper-literal definition that you and you alone choose to use. Go ahead.
As I said before, I’ve got ya’ll pegged quite correctly.
Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Just for reference, there’s a blatant example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Which has exactly ZERO relevance to anything I’ve said.
You claim that it’s ONLY the social stigma. I can show economic damage, that one simple point destroys your argument. It doesn’t matter if the economic damage is just the cost of a few counseling sessions or if it’s billions in damage to an institution.
You said ONLY, that means no other, if there is just one minor other, your point is destroyed.
For someone trying to play lawyer and offer “legal opinion” you’re failing very very BASIC logic. You point is invalid.
Which is yet another drastic of what I said.
You ain’t writing no law brotha. You ain’t giving much a legal analysis either. You’re using a hyper-literal single instance definition of a word and saying that that definition and only that definition applies to each and every utterance of that word. You focus the definition so narrowly that the word itself becomes useless.
This just poor debate skills and shows a intellectual dishonesty on your part. You know that people are using a wider definition that you, but you refuse to even acknowledge that there is a wider scope of definition.
Then you try to play legal scholar? A 1L could wipe the floor with you if you tried this BS in court. So cut the crap about “legal opinion” because that ain’t what you’re giving, you’re just giving the opinion of another anonymous blog poster and you’re backing up your opinion by being intellectually dishonest and playing silly word games while misquoting your opponents position for a little good measure.
All the while, you’re supporting pedophilia. Nice brotha. Would your mama be proud of the opinions you’re spouting here? Would she be proud that you want pedophiles to be able to network and share strategies for how their gonna bugger your little brother?
I’ll be happy to really seriously publicly debate you on this. You ready to come out of the closet and put your opinions on your sleeve?
I’ll be your huckleberry.
Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 8:50 PM
Which is yet another drastic mischaracterization of what I said.
I originally dropped another phrase in there, but thought the spam filter might grab it so I deleted it, forgot to go back and fill in the spot. Apologies.
Jason Coleman on November 12, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Never done any of the above. However, you’ve gone so far as to say this:
You’re a slanderous f**kwit.
MadisonConservative on November 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Actually MC, you did, by referring to statements I made which were specifically stated as not all-inclusive, you made them all-inclusive.
SO yeah, you mis-characterized my statements intentionally and pulled things out of context intentionally.
As for the slander, look back at some of your and binky’s ad hominems earlier on. Don’t think your pot and kettle talk will bother me.
Jason Coleman on November 13, 2010 at 10:45 AM
You quite direclty implied it by saying this:
You’re specifically attempting to claim that I don’t care if it’s a crime because I don’t care about heinous sexual assault upon a defenseless child. By stating, “the rest of us” you are clearly NOT including me.
You can attempt denying it, but there is no other reasonable way to interpret that statement from you.
I haven’t misrepresented anyone’s statements. It’s not my fault if you regret some of your statements. And there’s a difference between playing gotcha and simply pointing out the logical errors contained within someone’s statements. I’ve done the latter.
Apparently, you consider sophisticated dialog which is above your head to be intellectual dishonesty.
Not at all. The criminal justice system assures a suspect their rights throughout the process of conviction, throughout the process of sentencing, and throughout the process of sentence service.
Have you ever heard of an appeal? Someone stripped of their rights wouldn’t be allowed to file an appeal.
Btw, nobody has the right to refuse a legal sentence after being convicted of a crime.
I’m not even sure what this babble is supposed to mean.
blink on November 13, 2010 at 2:44 PM
I’ve never claimed any such thing. My claim was quite clear. I stated that it wouldn’t be illegal if no social stigma existed.
Please don’t tell me that you don’t understand the difference.
I’m failing logic? Good lord, I wish you would attempt to demonstrate a shred of logic.
What are you talking about? Show me one legal code that statutorily outlaws “pedophilia.” You won’t find one. Legal codes outlaw specific actions – not philias.
So, if you want to participate in a discussion about the law, which is what my original statement clearly references, they you’re going to have to use legally defined terms. I’m very sorry if that upsets you.
People are welcome to use whatever definition they want, but if they are going to challenge my comments about the law, then it would benefit them to use legal definitions. Unlike you, some people are embarrassed to appear like an idiot.
I’d much rather have this discussion with a first year law student than you. They would probably agree with me. Otherwise, we would probably jump into the issue of state interest with respect to overcoming defense claims of due process and equal protection clauses. Because, if you really want to challenge my original statement – those would be the grounds to challenge. So, maybe if you read upon on those issues, then we can have a real debate. I’d still win of course, but at least you wouldn’t seem like an idiot.
I’m absolutely not stating legal opinion. I’m stating fact.
It’s obvious that sophisticated legal arguments sound like “silly word games” to you, but I’m also thinking that even basic legal arguments sound like “silly word games” to you.
And you’ve reached this conclusion based on what?
And you’ve reached this conclusion based on what?
This isn’t relevant, but do you want people to claim that communism is good? Do you support communism?
You don’t seem happy to me. You sound quite disturbed.
blink on November 13, 2010 at 3:14 PM
It’s no surprise that you don’t understand the concept of slander either.
blink on November 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Here’s the best example of your game. The posters here including myself are using the term pedophilia to refer to the set of sexual crimes against minors. Many, including myself, are using the term to avoid having to list a myriad of offenses.
Despite knowing this, you refuse to honestly debate by coming back to the “it’s a condition, not a crime”. You’re intentionally talking past everyone to call them wrong because they don’t list out in detail a series of specific crimes.
You and MC are both doing this. You’re doing it so you can claim you are right and everyone is stupid. Technically you are right, but in the instance you are right, you aren’t in the conversation. You’re holding up a dictionary and yelling at everyone that they’re wrong because they won’t use the exact definition that you want to use at the time. You conveniently jump around what others are saying and then attempt to count coup on something you know they or I don’t mean.
This is being a dishonest broker, and you know it.
I understand it quite fine, I don’t really think an anonymous poster who drops ad hominems all over the place has any business trying to cry that they’ve been slandered. As I said, you want to turn this into a public debate? I’ll be happy to put up some detailed positions witin a framework that isn’t as disjointed as a rolling comment thread with multiple participants only trying to address the points they want to address.
Your defense of the networking and strategy manual. Don’t bother with the “I’m standing up for the first amendment crap”, because you’re really not. The first doesn’t apply to Amazon. The author has no right to distribution.
When you enable, you in fact support.
No, you’re stating opinion and claiming facts that are really unrelated. The fact that there is no law against “pedophilia” is immaterial beacause we’re talking about the set of laws encompassing prohibitions on actions described in whole or part by the general term (not legal term) pedophilia.
So yeah, you’re playing silly word games when you go on about the legal definition or lack thereof of pedophilia.
Every time I’ve written the word, I could have less easily listed 10, 15, or 20 different offences, and listing them would most likely send more and more comments to moderation.
Like I said, you want to have a public legal debate, I’ll make it happen. Until then, stop pretending you’re some special legal advisor to the hotair community.
Jason Coleman on November 13, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Here’s where your game fails you. Philias aren’t illegal remember. The acts are. Forcible sexual acts upon a child are illegal for a myriad of reasons beyond the social stigma. Child pornography is illegal for a myriad of reasons beyond social stigma. Etc. Etc.
You’ve fallen into your own trap.
Jason Coleman on November 13, 2010 at 7:19 PM
The moment you incarcerate someone you have stripped them of their right to liberty.
Simple as that.
I don’t deny due process, I’m a big fan of it actually. Once due process has run it’s course however, still more rights will be stripped.
Again, you’re trying to say that I’m claiming ALL rights will be stripped, when I never said that. I wouldn’t mind if for a wide variety of sexual crimes against minors that ALL rights including the right to life be stripped after due process, and I’ll advocate for that and vote for it if it ever comes up, the two are different things though.
The fact remains though, that the whole point of criminal punishment is the removal of rights to varying degrees based on the severity of the offense. Yet no right should be taken away without due process. You made a convenient assumption for yourself and misstated my position intentionally to could coup. In effect, you blatantly lied about my position to try to support an immaterial point.
Sophisticated Dialog????
This is your sophisticated dialog? Note that this comment of yours was made before I even entered the conversation.
Sophisticated dialog, not quite, you’re just another anonymous flamer in a blog comment thread. Legal eagle, you ain’t.
Why don’t you let me know when you’re ready to have a serious dialog about the issue. I’m easy to find.
Jason Coleman on November 13, 2010 at 7:44 PM
But the purchase of this book isn’t one of those sets of sexual crimes against minors.
This isn’t some sort of word game. This isn’t a technicality. This isn’t semantics. You can kick and scream all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that the purchase of this book doesn’t violate any criminal code.
And that’s the “best example” that you have??
I’m not sure how more honest and simple I can make this for you. The purchase of this book isn’t a crime. In fact, the purchase of this book isn’t even a condition. How are those statements dishonest?
If someone attempts to claim that purchasing this book is a crime, then you’re damned right I’ll call them wrong.
I’m not just technically right – I’m absolutely right. The conversation is about the sale and purchase of this book.
At least you admit that your argument has been disjointed.
I’ve never defended the networking and strategy manual. Why would you falsely assert that?
I’ve never said anything about any first amendment. I’ve never claimed that Amazon or the author has any right to distribute anything.
It’s obvious that you haven’t understood much of anything on this thread.
Again, for the love of God, what set of laws are being violated by the purchase of this book? Because that’s what this thread has been about.
I’m beginning to think that you’re insane. Don’t bother to list 10, 15, or 20 different offenses – just list one offense and MAKE A FREAKING POINT!
You’ll make what happen? You don’t even know what’s being discussed, and you certainly don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m as much a legal advisor to the hotair community as you are the thread jester.
blink on November 14, 2010 at 1:45 AM
Hey, idiot. Forcible sexual acts on ANYONE is freaking illegal.
What about consensual sexual acts with an individual who chronologically is a minor despite physical, emotional, and intellectual development which is far superior to most 18 year olds?
How do you do it? How do you manage to ignore the exact statement that you quote?
You really are a simpleton.
blink on November 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM
The moment you incarcerate someone you have stripped them of their right to liberty.
Jason Coleman on November 13, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Maybe you’re confused by the fact that The Declaration of Independence states the belief that all men are created and originally endowed with a right to liberty. But this document has no legal standing. Nobody can be stripped of a right that they never had.
Then what the heck is your argument then? Why are you drooling with emotion about this issue?
And I assume that you support MC’s position that the government shouldn’t demand that Amazon provide a list of the purchasers of this book.
Hey, Peanut Brain. There is no right to life. Again, I think you’re confusing the all mean are created thing in the DoI. Do you always just make crap up as you go along?
Um, what is unsophisticated about a rhetorical question?
Come on. You need to do much better than this.
blink on November 14, 2010 at 2:17 AM
Another example of you claiming victory in a contest that never occurred.
Please show me where I’ve stated that the purchase of the book violates a criminal code.
You keep counting coup on irrelevancies and making up positions then ascribing them to other.
You’re intellectually dishonest, it’s as simple as that.
Jason Coleman on November 14, 2010 at 6:35 AM
Jason,
Please state, clearly and coherently, any arguments you might actually have about this issue.
Before you do, you might want to go back and read through the debate that occurred about the definition.
I’ll try to summarize as simply as I can for you.
Some commenters on here were arguing in favor of having the government arrest or surveil the purchasers of this book.
MC, and a few others, replied that they didn’t like that idea because the purchase of the book isn’t a crime. Commenters that were advocating arrests and/or surveillance argued back two different ways.
1. Some of the commenters that were advocating arrests argued back that “pedophilia” is in fact a crime and that only pedophiles that intend to commit a crime would purchase this book. MC, and a few others, argued back that neither the philia itself nor the intent is a crime AND THEREFORE the purchase of this book isn’t a crime. So the definition game was really started by some of those advocating arrests.
2. Some of the commenters that were advocating arrests argued that pedophilia is so terrible that the government shouldn’t wait until an actual crime has occurred. They argued that the purchase of this book demonstrates the purchaser’s desire to do something so bad that we shouldn’t worry about their rights. MC, and a few others, argued back that the government shouldn’t start arresting people because of their desires. They also argued back that this would be a dangerous precedent to set because liberals could someday consider conservative ideals/desires “so bad” that the government shouldn’t need to worry about conservatives’ rights.
Intelligent, rational readers understood this discussion. You, however, are too stupid or too emotional. You interpreted all of this to mean that MC, and a few others, are being soft on actual crimes perpetrated against children. I’d also like to add that you were so stark raving mad (or just too stupid) that you ignored all attempts to explain all this to you.
Now, when someone attempted to explain to you that nobody on here was advocating leniency on those that actually perpetrate actual crimes against children you decided to quote my statement that the crimes being discussed because of this book are only illegal because of the social stigmas surrounding them.
An intelligent, rational person wouldn’t assume that I meant that forcible rape (of someone of any age) was associated with a simple social stigma. An intelligent, rational person would realize that I was referring to social stigmas surrounding consensual sex. An intelligent, rational person would know that social stigmas surrounding all types of consensual sex have been fading over the years.
Social stigmas surrounding consensual sex between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse (adultery) used to be illegal in several states. But that social stigma has faded and such sex is no longer illegal.
Social stigmas surrounding homosexual sex used to be illegal in several states. But that social stigma has faded and such sex is no longer illegal. The psychiatric field had labeled homosexual desires as disorders. Now that the social stigma has faded you won’t find a single psychiatrist that would dare to make any such suggestion. It’s accepted that individuals are born with such sexual desires.
So, where does that leave us? Are certain individuals born with a desire to have sex with younger people, or is it a psychiatric disorder? Given the social stigmas surrounding the concept of sexual desires for anyone under 18, the psychiatric community is adequately emboldened to restate the disorder. The fact that it’s a disorder emboldens those that make criminal convictions. Without the backing of the psychiatric community, prosecutors might have difficulty proving the “fairness” of age-of-consent laws.
[As it is now, minors can certainly give their consent regarding many, many issues such as: i) sex with someone of the same age - nobody is being raped when two 14 year olds consent to have sex); ii) medical procedures such as abortion in many states; and many types of contracts with minors are enforceable if the minor wants the contract enforced.]
Now, the question becomes, will the psychiatric community continue to claim that desires to have consensual sex with someone younger than 18 is a disorder. It’s silly to suggest that a desire to have sex with a 19 year old isn’t a disorder, yet the desire to have sex with a 17 year old that is more physically mature, intelligent, and emotionally developed than the 19 year old is. What about 16? If society begins to accept the fact that an individual is born with such desire, then wouldn’t society also begin to accept the fact that it’s discriminatory to prevent the individual from having sex with the person she “loves” simply because of some inconsistent enforcement of age-of-consent laws? Considering the recent past, it’s a given that the psychiatric community would abandon their support of many types of criminal convictions. Once that is gone, so are many criminal convictions.
But I’ve never claimed that the social stigma WILL fade. I’ve merely claimed what will happen if it does.
Many commenters understood that I meant ALL of this when they first read my comment. But the dull kid in the class needs to be spoon fed.
blink on November 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM
My entries here are based around this:
This statement came along with others where you accused people of “babbling”, after you called another’s opinion “absurd” and other condescending remarks.
I’ll *note* here: This is the conversation which you describe as “sophisticated dialog.”
So let us review:
Pedophilia (the condition) is not illegal. I grant that, no problem. You try to hammer people on this quite correct legal point and ridicule them when they are referring to Pedophilia (the acts associated therewith).
Yet your comment quoted above contradicts yourself on a very basic and fundamental level. I posit that the act of making that comment and leaving it stand and then actually trying to defend that comment, does in fact amount to tacit approval of pedophilia; in short it offers an “excuse” (Def #3) for pedophilia’s harsh reception as merely social stigma.
If the statement quoted above stands and you leave it uncorrected. . . (which indeed was my initial intent to try to shock you into realizing your mistake in calling pedophilia illegal). . .and. . . you left it uncorrected. You actually doubled down.
So if you are talking about pedophilia (the condition) and you’re saying: “In fact, if pedophilia wasn’t socially stigmatized it wouldn’t even be illegal.”
You have a problem with your basic logic, or you may have a slightly more “nuanced” reasoning.
So. . . .maybe you were talking about “In fact, if pedophilia(the acts associated therewith) wasn’t socially stigmatized it wouldn’t even be illegal.” *I added the bolded portion*
If you were, then I’ll stand by my claim that you are quite wrong about this. The acts will continue to be illegal because they are at their base, crimes against individuals and society in and of their own. They will continue to carry a much harsher sentence that those committed against adults because of the class of the victim.
Just as it’s a harsher sentence for those who commit crimes based upon skin color, sexual orientation, age, religion and a wide range of other (for lack of a better term) special interest groups, crimes carried out against children will always carry a greater penalty. I could list reasons for this, but I think it’s pretty obvious that children hold special legal status.
So really, no matter how you look at it, the statement is deeply and fatally flawed. You yourself state that pedophilia (the condition) is not illegal. So the statement fails.
I think it’s pretty obvious that pedophilia (the acts) will also remain illegal because the acts are crimes even without the additional aggravating factor of the age of the victim. The statement is fatally flawed in this instance as well.
So there’s how I got into your “sophisticated dialog” which quite frankly wasn’t very sophisticated. Your legal posturing and bluster was and continues to be amusing as well as your watching you try to hold together your house of cards built on a flawed foundation.
If you really want to have a sophisticated public dialog where I support keeping the screws to pedophiles and you support helping remove the social stigma and fostering a new understanding of these most heinous criminals and their efforts to network and share strategies. . . I’ll be glad to oblige.
Yes, I’m taking liberties with your position, I honestly hope that you find pedophilia as abhorrent as I do, but I’m kinda doubting that I’m missing the mark on you.
Jason Coleman on November 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Yes, and I did that within the context of supporting MC’s statements regarding the purchase of this book not being illegal.
Try not to be stupid. I made that quote before some commenter attempted to claim that the purchasers of this book should be arrested because all purchasers of this book are pedophiles and pedophilia is illegal. I, along with MC, responded that pedophilia itself is not illegal.
Again, try not to be an idiot. My statement doesn’t, in any way, imply that something should or shouldn’t receive harsh receptions. I merely stated that something wouldn’t receive a harsh reception if there wasn’t a social stigma associated with it.
No it wasn’t, you disingenuous little twerp. If you had mentioned that, I would have immediately conceded that point and clarified. Initially, you quite clearly intended to claim that I was a pedophile.
So if you are talking about pedophilia (the condition) and you’re saying: “In fact, if pedophilia wasn’t socially stigmatized it wouldn’t even be illegal.”
If an individual consents, then how is that a crime against the individual? And why would something to be a crime against society if society no longer cares (if there’s no social stigma associated with something, then society no longer feels that a crime has been committed against society because that’s kinda the whole definition of a social stigma).
I never argued anything about the degree of sentences associated with actions which are crime regardless of whether the victim is a child or an adult. There might also be harsher penalties for stealing the identity of a child or denying a child their first amendment rights – I don’t know, and it’s not part of this discussion either.
WHAT???? Are you talking about hate crime penalties????? If so, are you claiming that hate crime penalties will “always” exist? And are you also claiming that hate crime penalties will “always” exist EVEN IF the social stigma associated with hate crimes fades?
If so, then somehow you’ve succeeding in becoming an even bigger idiot that I thought you were.
Yeah, because of how society feels about them. Societial stigmas partly exist because of how society feels about them.
Do you really not understand how you continue to make yourself look like a fool time and time again?
Even if you disregard your cluelessness with respect to context, the statement doesn’t fail at all. If pedophilia isn’t illegal now, then how could it become illegal if social stigmas fade? So, disregarding your context simply strengthens the irrefutability of my original statement.
Ha ha. Your statements get more sophomoric as you go along. You’ve stated that the acts will remain illegal because the acts are crimes – which is incredibly idiotic. And it’s idiotic even if you meant to state that the acts will remain illegal because of an aggravating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances don’t matter unless the underlying act is actually a crime.
A five year old doesn’t understand what is and what isn’t sophisticated dialog either.
Overall, Jason. You did an excellent job ignoring the detailed explanation I spoon fed to you in my previous comment. Anyone with an IQ over 75 would have understood it. So, either you didn’t read it, or you didn’t exceed the IQ threshold. Neither would surprise me.
blink on November 14, 2010 at 9:08 PM
I’ll simply point out that you didn’t refute any of my points with any logical argument.
Each of your retorts above simply followed the following formula: Ad Hominem + Irrelevant statement = ?win?.
Examples:
Most of your paragraphs follow this formula, it’s tired and common among anonymous comment flame warriors. It’s pretty easy to see through.
Beyond your formulaic retorts:
True but not completely so. Children are recognized to have special consideration in almost all manners in which they interact with society. We could spend hours discussing all the reasons children aren’t allowed to enter contracts directly and why those who engage in contracts involving children must follow certain guidelines that do not exist with adults. This is not a matter of how we FEEL about children, it’s about what is deemed to be their capacity for consent, their ability to communicate, their knowledge and understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable and in general their judgment. It’s also about how damage to a child is magnified through time and potentials.
There are hundreds if not thousands of pages of legislation and rule-making regarding the special class that children represent.
Your statement that children are only protected as a class solely because of how we “feel” about them is without merit. It’s obvious from the thousands upon thousands of hours of work on the issues surrounding child law, that it’s not just about feelings, there’s a great deal of logic involved too.
But I like this best:
So the only reason you doubled down on a point you know and now admit was fatally flawed was to play legal eagle flame warrior? So you’re saying that NOW, you’re admitting that the point could not stand on it’s merits, but because I didn’t explicitly tell you how it failed, you MADE it good through later argument????? Rich brotha, rich.
Yeah. . . You’re having a sophisticated discussion. . . it doesn’t matter if your points don’t survive basic logic, you just need to get your flame on and dig those heels in for the hope of some Pyhrric victory.
As I said early on. I got you pegged.
Good luck in wishing that societies feelings about pedophilia fade so you can. . . .perhaps work on getting those age of consent laws lowered.
13 year old girl, 40 year old man, here’s a little coin, don’t tell ya mama. That’s your play binky?! Beautiful move. . . that comment gets it’s own bookmark. Do you want to “concede and clarify” that one? Or maybe double down. . . how bout two 9 year olds with signed releases and video cameras?
I hope you were able to get a copy of the ebook before Amazon took it down. I expect you’ll print it out and give it pride of place to remind you every day that the only evil of pedophilia is the social stigma it carries.
I still wonder how your mama would feel if she read your defenses here. Lucky for you she probably doesn’t know, binky.
Perhaps you might have a point or two on me in IQ binky. Given the juvenile nature of your insults “twerp, idiot, stupid” I can only . . . .oh wait. . . juvenile. . . I get it.
Yeah Binky. i,you = pegged.
PS – Some of what is lumped in with current “hate crime” legislation existed long before the terminology “hate crime”. I could call you stupid for not recognizing that. There is really very little evidence to support that special victim classes will ever go away, they’ve existed since the earliest days of codified law.
Jason Coleman on November 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM
I refuted ALL of your points with actual logic.
No, the formula is: Refute Your Stupid Point + Spoon Feed Information Only Idiots Need + Brilliant Observation + Attempt To Get You To Stop Embarrassing Yourself = Everybody Knows I’m Right
It’s not as tired as someone that should have given up their losing argument a long, long time ago.
Who recognizes children to have special consideration?? Society??
Seriously, Jason, you just keep repeating elements of my original statement over and over again while continuing to tell me that I’m wrong. You’ve done more to prove that I’m right than anyone else on this thread. It really is silly.
YES, PLEASE!!!! Let’s discuss contract law with respect to minors! I’ve already explained how it supports my argument. Did you pretend not to read that, or didn’t you understand it?
Yes, it is a matter of how we FEEL about children. In fact, it’s ONLY a matter of how we FEEL about children.
Yes, actually. It IS about how we feel about “their capacity for consent, their ability to communicate, their knowledge and understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable and in general their judgment.”
If society felt differently about those issues, then the law would be different.
It’s amazing how you continue to prove me right with every comment you make.
Who determines this damage? Oh that’s right, I already explained this. Again, you obviously didn’t read my spoon fed explanation or didn’t understand it.
What would this have to do with my original statement? Yes, SOCIETY feels that children are special. That was party of my original point.
Hey, Genius. You just provided plenty of merit within THIS comment.
I didn’t double down on anything. I’ve ALWAYS explained that I used the term pedophilia quite broadly BEFORE the term began to be parsed. I would have used a more specific term if ANYONE had questioned that.
You never questioned the broadness of my term until a few comments ago. Stop pretending that you did. It really is pathetic.
Again, I spoon fed you an explanation regarding the term. You either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe I’m hoping that “societies (sic)” feelings about pedophilia DON’T change because it’s the only thing that’s maintaining the age of consent laws??
Of course not, you’re too stupid to even consider what most readers already assumed.
My question wasn’t rhetorical. It was meant for you to answer it. You might have realized something if you had tried to answer it. You’re still welcome to answer it, but it would involve an issue that I’ve already discussed at length.
No, I want you to answer the question, but only after you’ve read the information that I’ve already spoon fed you.
This statement is a perfect example of your idiocy. I never said that pedophilia is only evil because society says that it is. How could you ever make such a stupid comment?
There are many evils in this world that society doesn’t view as evil. Just because society doesn’t recognize the evil in something doesn’t mean that it’s not evil.
So what happens when a society no longer finds something evil despite the fact that it is still evil? They certainly stop supporting laws that restrict such evils.
Or are you suggesting that society properly identifies ALL evils?
Seriously, Jason. Your statements are getting more and more stupid.
Of course I’m intellectually superior. It’s good to see you admit that, but you’re obviously still in denial about the magnitude of such superiority. My IQ is obviously twice your IQ.
Oh please. You inserted age into the middle of a bunch of hate crime victims. Nice try. But again, this has EVERYTHING to do with how SOCIETY feels about these victims. There’s no way for you to get around that because it’s true. Why don’t you just accept it.
blink on November 15, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Society may feel, I’ve already granted that. However, it’s not the only consideration, much logic and factual discussion goes much beyond “feelings”.
Even here you followed the formula. Ad hominem + Irrelevance + New self lauding = ?win?
I’ll note that the “everybody” you mentioned seems to consist basically of one person, Madison Conservative.
More people on the thread disagree with you than agree.
Once again, you’ve proved yourself false.
My only argument is that you’re wrong about:
You agreed without really realizing it.
Now you want to move the goalposts:
Which is contradicted by:
You can’t have it both ways.
You can call yourself the smartest guy in the room all you want, but I’ve read through the comments, and the room doesn’t agree with you. Go ahead and count them up if you like.
Far from being brilliant, you’re merely a anonymous comment troll. One who would have failed in a moderated debate numerous times already.
Here’s a hint, if you have to proclaim your own brilliance in the same sentence as you decry someone’s supposed stupidity, I think the proper term is “EPIC fail”.
But go ahead and tell the internets how brilliant you are again.
Jason Coleman on November 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Then why on earth do you drone on and on about the way society feels as some sort of proof that the law wouldn’t change if society decided to change how it felt?
It makes no sense.
Only you and one other idiot disagreed with me.
No, I explained why one term was used instead of another term.
No, I want you to use your little pea brain to understand the difference between the two terms and why I used one before the other.
No, the word “it” was referring to the law. The word “it” wasn’t referring to evil.
Please tell me you understand the difference between the word “law” and the word “evil.”
I don’t need anything both ways. One statement was about evil and the other statement was about the law.
I don’t need to. Anyone with half an IQ that reads my comments knows that I’m the smartest guy in the room.
I don’t need to tell anyone. The smart ones know how brilliant I am.
I’m loving this, and I’m not even close to feeling sorry for you yet. So by all means, keep trying. Maybe you’ll find an example of me using the word “is” when I should have used the word “are” because that’s the best you’re going to get.
blink on November 16, 2010 at 2:54 AM
Page one of the comments alone shows you wrong. . . again.
After you made the comment on page two that I flagged, it only gets worse for you.
Contrarily, only two people have disagreed with me. You and MadisonConservative. It seems as though you have reality flipped on it’s head, or maybe you’re just projecting.
After all you’re rehashing my throw-aways and calling them your own now.
Which is really funny to me because not only are you rehashing my statement to call your own, but YOU are the one who on more than one occasion has criticized grammar or typos/misspellings.
You’re not just an anonymous pedophilic comment troll, you’ve become a self-caricature the of the anonymous pedophilic comment troll.
Jason Coleman on November 16, 2010 at 12:40 PM
She didn’t disagree. She only misunderstood at first.
Of course I have, but I’ve ALSO criticized your excessive number of stupid and illogical comments. The best you got is that I used two different terms for two different contexts.
Are you definitively claiming that I’m a pedophile? Let me know so that I can tell the website moderators.
For the record, I’m definitively calling you an idiot. Feel free to inform the moderators for that. They will quickly see that you are, in fact, an idiot. They will also quickly agree with the points I was making and agree that only an idiot would conclude that they were made by a pedophile.
blink on November 18, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Page one showed you wrong, page two showed you wrong, etc.
I called you a pedophilic comment troll, I went further to call you a self-caricature the of the anonymous pedophilic comment troll.
Tell the moderators all you want. For someone so consumed with grammar. . . .go ahead, run to the moderators, embarrass yourself.
Jason Coleman on November 18, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Nothing showed me wrong, and I’ve owned you this entire thread.
Quick question. Are you one of the Jason Colemans in the sex offender registry?
blink on November 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM
As I said, you’re nothing but an anonymous pedophillic comment troll.
Now you go whine to the moderators.
Jason Coleman on November 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM
Not even a no answer.
blink on November 19, 2010 at 10:07 AM
IF you need an answer, it’s no. But thanks for playing.
Of course it doesn’t change the fact that you’re an anonymous pedophillic comment troll.
Have a nice day.
Jason Coleman on November 19, 2010 at 6:19 PM
I didn’t need an answer. I just thought it was very strange that you didn’t answer.
Keep calling me a troll for these types of threads all you want – if it makes you happy. But you were clearly the troll of this thread.
blink on November 20, 2010 at 10:56 AM
I’ll just take comfort in the fact, that despite your attempts to wrangle, my original point was supported and you ceeded. I never made any real points other than that, so I’m satisfied.
As for who was the troll. Usually, and in this case, it’s the one who makes appeals to the phantom crowd, proclaims their own infallability and/or in your case “brilliance.”
you – still pegged
Have a wonderful day.
Jason Coleman on November 20, 2010 at 3:52 PM
I highlighted your inability to recognize contextual shifts. I didn’t cede anything. But, by all means, take great comfort in it since it’s all you got. (Did you spell ceded wrong simply to bait me?)
It’s laughable that you want to try to claim a tiny victory simply because I stated that I used a term loosely, when it was appropriate, prior to the context of the debate shifting.
My brilliance is certainly on display throughout this thread. No appeals were made, and you’ve demonstrated your stupidity, yet again, for claiming otherwise.
Your pegging is sophomoric. Try to step up and think like someone with an average IQ.
blink on November 20, 2010 at 7:50 PM
I certainly recognize contextual shifts, I just don’t have to agree to allow them whenever you want them. Your comments need to be able to stand on their own to be valid. Yours could not, therefore. . . .
The problem is, you did.
You admit here that simply the act of me drawing attention to your point is enough to make you cede it. If your point can’t survive the smallest little bit of light being shined upon it without you having to concede it, it’s an invalid point.
Fact remains. You recognized the fault, but you were too busy trying to count coup upon me. In fact, you’re whole point since my original highlight of your faulty comment is to try to insult me and claim your own superiority. Sorry bud, but you’re one hand clapping.
Unfortunately, you’re the only one who recognizes it. Again, I’ll point out that more people disagree with your points than agree. Go ahead, tally it all up.
My “pegging” is spot on, it’s pretty easy to see who and what you are, an anonymous pedophillic comment troll.
Have a fantastic day.
Jason Coleman on November 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM
No, you don’t. This is evidenced by what you say later.
How can you disallow a contextual shift? Context shifts in multi-person conversations all the time. You can’t disallow them unless you have the power to silence people – which you most certainly do not have on here.
I was responding to the contextual shift because it was appropriate to respond to the contextual shift. It’s also hilarious that you think you can “disallow” a response to a contextual shift.
Well congratulations, Jason Coleman. You continue to present yourself as a bigger and bigger idiot every few comments. Context is always important for comments. There is no “stand on their own” requirement for any statement.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . . ok, I’m crying now.
Jason Coleman, you are illiterate.
GREAT JOB CONFUSING THE WORD CONCEDE WITH THE WORD CEDE. I should have known something was wrong when you spelled ceeded wrong (at least you didn’t spell it seeded).
Here’s the first two definitions of concede.
Notice, it doesn’t state anything about admitting error or anything remotely similar.
Now, here’s the definition of cede.
I didn’t yield anything and I certainly didn’t imply that I would have granted anything to you for the purpose of treaty.
See the difference?
I was stating that IF you had mentioned a specific point at the time then I would have accepted your statement as true.
In other words, if you had stated, “you adjusted your definition according to the context” then I would have acknowledged that such a statement is true.
And here’s where it just gets worse for you. I never claimed that I didn’t adjust my definition!!!
I’ve made two points such as A and B. I also stated that IF you had claimed C, then I would have acknowledged that C was true. But C doesn’t, in any way, change A or B.
That’s my whole point. Reread that comment again. I stated that it’s pathetic for you to base your entire argument on a context shift because I would have acknowledged such context shift response immediately.
No, I didn’t. You’re just illiterate.
Nope. Everyone recognizes MY brilliance and your stupidity.
Your pegging is as bad as your vocabulary.
blink on November 22, 2010 at 9:53 PM
Ok, huckleberry. If you make A and B, and I come along and drop C on you, it VERY WELL MIGHT change A or B.
IF C states that you’re wrong about A, and you concede the point, A changes.
YOU didn’t make two statements that I care about, you made one.
So, when you conceded to my C, you ceded your A.
No contextual shift will change that.
Your hubris can’t get you out of that.
You’re still just an anonymous pedophillic comment troll. One who’s so full of himself that now he can’t even defend himself, but must resort to playing grammar and spelling games and who can’t even get BARBARA right.
Jason Coleman on November 24, 2010 at 9:07 AM
I’m not conversing with multiple people. I’m conversing with you. I don’t have to let you change the context.
Get out your pedophillic comment troll email directory and give MC a shout, maybe s/he will come back and help you change the context, but I’m not gonna.
I guess you don’t do much formal debate. I’m doubting you had a logic class in college. I don’t have to agree to your desire to shift the context. I can hold it right where I want it to be and make you choke on it if I want.
Go round yourself up a couple of supporters and you can drown me out if you like, bu most here have not supported your claims. Count them up.
So while it’s just you and me, I can disallow your contextual changes all I want. You need 51% of the conversation to change the focus or context. You don’t have it.
Jason Coleman on November 24, 2010 at 9:26 AM
blink on November 24, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Hey, Knucklehead. I was the one conversing with multiple commenters well before you entered the conversation. The context of the debate had shifted.
1. You can’t prevent contextual shifts in a multi-person conversation.
2. Even if you could prevent contextual shifts in a multi-person conversation, you weren’t around to prevent it.
Why do you continue to dig deeper and deeper into your hole?
You’re not gonna do many things. You’re not gonna use any logic here. You’re not gonna try to think past 1st base. You’re not gonna stop embarrassing yourself here.
Keep refusing to do everything. I don’t care.
And you also don’t have to agree to let it rain outside. You don’t have to agree to a stock market decline. You don’t have to agree to an aircraft landing.
Please tell me you understand that many, many, many, many things will occur with or without your agreement.
No, you can’t. Not at all. Not in any sense whatsoever. Just like you can’t hold the sunshine “right where you want it to be” as a broad thunderstorm approaches.
Are you one of these kids whose parents erroneously told you that you can do anything? If so, I guess it’s good that I’m here to bring a dose of reality to your life.
Says the idiot that thinks he has the power to hold a message board conversation right where he wants it – even when he’s not around!
Um, does moot court competition count? Um yeah, I thought it would.
But we’re discussing contextual changes that occurred from page 1, you stupid simpleton!
Wait! What’s this?!?!?
Are you actually admitting that 51% of the participants can actually change the context of a debate??!?!?!?!?!?
What happened to all that stuff about you not allowing a contextual shift? Are you actually agreeing that it can happen without your permission?!?!?!?
This is really going downhill for you fast.
blink on November 24, 2010 at 10:23 AM
What you fail to recognize Blink, is that there are only two participants in this conversation at this point. Scroll up, nobody here but us chickens. And remember, even if you include everyone else who were earlier parties to your conversation, you still had more disagree with your brilliant hubris than agreed with you.
But to 51%, yep, in a two party conversation, which is what this is. You need me to agree to a contextual shift. Add more people and it is much easier to get to that 51 because you’ve devalued my share, but as long as it’s just us, you gotta get me to agree to a shift.
If someone else comes in, feel free to join with them to change the context of the discussion.
Whatever conversations you had with someone else are immaterial to me. All that’s left is you and me.
Nope. C, that’s me, said no such thing. I said you made a mistake and your point was invalidated by that mistake, among other reasons.
You can try to lie about what I said, but I don’t have to allow that either.
As for your moot court experience, I can see why you haven’t yet made it to a real courtroom. Again, if you get BARBARA wrong. . . well, you’re just simply wrong.
Once again your hubris strikes. This goes neither downhill nor uphill for me. I’m the one sticking to issue, you’re the one jumping issues and demanding contextual shifts to try and make your point valid.
The fact remains:
That statement is fatally flawed. You yourself acknowledge it.
Even your brilliant hubris couldn’t get that statement to survive your mock court game.
Beyond that, the statement itself is morally abhorrent, the fact that you even want to defend it says quite a bit about you. Most people would rightly run away from that statement, but not you, the anonymous pedophillic comment troll.
Jason Coleman on November 24, 2010 at 9:15 PM
We are most clearly discussing comments I made when this thread of full of participants.
Then why are you commenting about them?
C is a statement. C isn’t a person. Do you ever think before you type? If C was a person, then who would A and B be? A and B were two different statements that I made. A utilized a loose definition, and B utilized a narrow definition after the context had shifted after two pages of discussion with multiple people.
How many times do I need to explain this to you?
And you were wrong.
I have plenty of courtroom experience.
Laughable. You don’t even understand the facts of what occurred nonetheless and logic.
Are you freaking kidding me? I’ve been repeating myself over and over and over.
I’m not demanding anything. The context of the discussion shifted during three pages of comments. That’s a fact. Why can’t your brain understand that?
That statement is 100% true and isn’t flawed at all. I’ve merely mentioned that the statement utilized a definition which was more broad than the definition being discussed two pages later in this thread.
No. I acknowledged that the statement utilized a broad definition.
Not at all. It’s purely a true, clinical, sociological statement. It’s completely independent on any moral beliefs about the topic at all.
I can state, “homosexuality is more accepted in society now than it was 50 years ago.” That statement speaks nothing to the moral beliefs of homosexuality either way.
Are you really too stupid to understand that?
Why? Only idiots like you don’t understand it. Do you honestly think I should run away from something just because an idiot might not understand it?
Jason Coleman, why did it take you so long to deny that you were on the registered sex offender list? Did it take you awhile to decide to lie about it? Are you lying about it? Is that why you’re so irrational about this topic?
blink on November 25, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Ha Ha Binky.
1. You’re a lawyer, right, sure you are. YOU ARE A LIAR.
2. You really are leaving this with “When did you stop beating your wife” questions?
LOL, so what, that statement has nothing to do with the fatally flawed statement you made. Yeah, you’re a lawyer, you’re a liar.
Why didn’t you tell me you’re the assistant federal prosecutor for crimes against children or some other ridiculous claim.
You’re about as much a lawyer as Napolitano is a swimsuit model.
So when did you stop wanting to have sex with little children bink?
Jason Coleman on November 25, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Actually Binky, I want to thank you. You actually have now accomplished what I set out to have you do from the very beginning. I’ll admit I wansn’t sure how to get you to that point once I started, but I went ahead and has someone take a look at this, and I’ve pretty much got what I set out to get.
If you don’t find the statement you made fatally flawed, then that’s your problem. It’s easily demonstrated as such. A)Pedophillia (the condition is not illegal) and B)Pedophillia (the acts associated with) are illegal for reasons beyond the age of the victim.
But really Binky, it’s the fact that you WANT to defend that statement, you feel you need to make that statement true is what delivers the measure of you. IF you don’t think the statement is morally abhorrent, that’s fine binky, because I’m pretty darn sure that it’s your projection that speaking and it’s pretty obvious that want the social stigma removed for whatever reason so you can work on that consent thing.
So have a wonderful day, binky the pretend lawyer.
I’ve still got you pegged, and no contextual shifting is gonna make you look any better.
Now go ahead and put on your best lawyer costume and call me some more juevenile names, criticize some spelling and grammar or threaten to run off and tell the moderators.
So now I’m gonna revise it, your an anonymous pedophillic comment troll with delusions you’re a lawyer.
So when did you stop fantasizing about little Suzy or Billy next door?
———————
Now you might come back and say something along the lines of “I never explicitly stated I was a lawyer, you’re so stupid” or some such. If you try that then I’ll just know that your “courtroom experience” is as either a defendant or a janitor.
Jason Coleman on November 25, 2010 at 12:43 PM
I’ve never lied about anything on here.
That’s not a ‘when did you stop beating your wife” question at all. Are you actually trying to seem stupid now?
Sure it does. It’s a true statement about a sociological issue that speaks nothing of the morality of the issue itself. My original statement in this thread was the same in that respect.
blink on November 27, 2010 at 7:47 PM
So you were actually trying to make yourself look stupid – because that’s exactly what I accomplished – not that it was difficult.
Yes, as you stated above, the acts associated with pedophilia are illegal for reasons beyond the age of the victim. For example, if the victim was 32, then it would still be illegal. /sarc
Your stupidity is very entertaining.
It’s not surprising that you don’t know what projection is either.
Only the dimmist of bulbs would reach this conclusion. Naturally, that’s you.
I’ve never lied about being a lawyer, but I find it funny that you think being a lawyer is a big deal. Then again, you probably couldn’t make it through even an unaccredited law school, and you probably couldn’t even pass the Minnesota bar exam.
Seriously, Jason Coleman, you are the biggest idiot I’ve encountered on Hot Air.
blink on November 27, 2010 at 8:04 PM
It’s interesting that you didn’t answer any of these questions.
blink on November 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM
It’s interesting that you didn’t answer any of these questions.
Jason Coleman on November 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM
I don’t, but I do find it funny when someone like you tries to pretend they are one.
Have a wonderful day Binky.
Jason Coleman on November 28, 2010 at 7:08 PM
Because those aren’t serious questions. Mine was.
blink on November 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM
Retards like you find all sorts of imaginary things funny.
blink on November 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM
More hubris and ad hominem from you, that’s really all you’ve had all along.
Retard huh. Is poopy-head next? You really are a caricature of the anonymous pedophillic comment troll aren’t you.
Now go run along and pretend you’re a brilliant lawyer some more.
Jason Coleman on November 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM
But you know binky, I still can’t help but smile. You’ve gone to tremendous effort to defend a statement you admit is so fatally flawed that just IF someone had called attention to it’s flaw immediately you would have conceded the point, retracted or clarified the statement. Of course that was IF they did it explicitly in their opening salvo.
But that’s immaterial. Here’s the quote:
This is the statement you’ve chosen to defend. Really Binky, I’m curious, would you have made the statement at the Thanksgiving table in front of your mother? IF the statement is valid and true and of merit, you should have no problem doing that.
I don’t think you feel that way though. I think you’re embarrassed by the statement so you have to defend it to the last breath you have. . . you have to pump yourself up and bluff that you’re a brilliant lawyer-type with loads of “courtroom experience”. . . you have to resort to “when did you stop beating your wife” questions when it’s demonstrated that your most basic BARBARA logical syllogism fails. . . you have to resort to hurling “retard” as an epithet.
All this to defend:
YOU = PEGGED = Anonymous pedophillic comment troll.
Thanks ever so much for playing binky. It really has been amazing to watch your gymnastics. Your ability to context shift, mis-direct, create strawmen and delve into ad hominem has been about the only brilliant thing you’ve done, too bad that all of that is merely false argumentation and it never helped your position.
I do thank you for loading the clip for me, it’s just too bad you couldn’t get MC to stick around a bit longer, we could have used some more quote-hooks there.
So have a wonderful day Binky. Feel free to go on about how stupid I am and how brilliant you are. I’ll probably let you have the last word, can you top “retard” as a retort?
Jason Coleman on November 30, 2010 at 11:01 AM
A caricature of something that only exists in your mind? Add the word caricature to the list of words that you misuse.
Of course I would, Retard. My mother isn’t an idiot like you. My mother and everyone at the Thanksgiving Day table would know that the statement is accurate because they’re not stupid.
I haven’t pumped myself up at all. You obviously just feel small in comparison.
Finally, you make an accurate statement.
No. You’re a retard because you don’t understand either of these concepts enough to discuss them.
I don’t need to defend anything. The statement is accurate.
I don’t need to go on about how stupid you are. You do that perfectly all by yourself.
And I certainly don’t need to go on about how brilliant I am. That’s obvious to everyone.
Not at all. The only embarrassment I risk is engaging you as if you’re worthy of engagement.
Don’t give up. Try one more time to claim that my broad use of a certain word (which I’ve admitted is a broad use) earlier in a thread somehow renders a statement untrue. It’s so convincing.
Not at all. It characterizes you perfectly, Retard.
blink on November 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5