Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

...or at least his books:



I love that the books were analyzed by "a panel psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists". Priceless.

I hope Russia wins this one.

Banning books is never a good thing.

Scientology is as stupid as any other religion so this isn't anything to be happy about.

No, they are very, very dangerous. They have created a nigh slave-state in LA with their employs who they contract into a sort of perpetual work debt under religious obligation. Much like the Hare Krishna's a while back and they are just as dangerous of an organization.

If people are stupid enough to get sucked in that's their own problem.

Wow by that logic almost no group should ever get punished for anything.

If they're breaking the law then of course punish them... But not by outlawing their text. It's pretty obstructing free speach in one of it's purest forms. No one is forcing people to read these texts... and if they are it's not the books that are the problem it's the people pushing it. It's not about letting people get away with anything. It's about basic human rights.

What benefit is offerred by them being legal (I ask, because judging from the marijuana thread you seem to think there must be one for something to be legal).

Didn't Germany ban it too? Or was it France?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What benefit is offerred by them being legal (I ask, because judging from the marijuana thread you seem to think there must be one for something to be legal). Because I regard books as a more precious commodity than pot, they are not even in the same league. Books aren't just for today, they're for generations to read, enjoy and research.

Not only that, if you start banning books then where does it end?

Don't ask such stupid questions. This isn't even related to the weed debate. They're totally different.

Go Russia, maybe they're not as moronic as initially thought.

Originally posted by Robtard
What about a book on how to best kidnap, ass-rape and murder children? Stop trying to get my books banned.

Originally posted by Robtard
What about a book on how to best kidnap, ass-rape and murder children? Well, I don't think kidnapping and raping a child is very taxing so I don't think people are just thinking "I've always wanted to rape a child, if only there was a book that taught me how."

A book like that isn't going to get published anyway, an I don't consider a bloke in his house printing and putting it on sheets of A4 putting staples through it as real publishing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because it's not like small children are near constantly being watched by full grown adults or anything...



a) refusal to publish is just another form of censorship
b) vanity publishers will print anything Not publishing isn't a form of censorship. That's just a pathetic arguement. These publishers are running a buisness. They're not a public service.

The fact is a book being released about child rape isn't going to stenghten the numbers. If it was to it's not the fault of the reading material, it's the fault of the sick **** who bought it and commited the crime. Texts can't be held accountable for the stupidity of humans.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a a bullshit answer; you know it.

It was a hypothetical. What if a book like this was made and people grouped together to get it banned, would you be against the banning for the same reasons you stated above? A bullshit answer? I was using the example he set to make my point. My point is that books shouldnt be held accountable for what people use and take from them.

Literature is an art form, to ban it is a disgrace no mattter how many lobby for it.

Originally posted by Mindset
Actually, a book about raping kids was published in Australia.

K1eNDIioyx8 That really isn't the point. Not only that, the content of the books from the video suggest it's less about "teaching adults how to kidnap, ass rape (plus whatever else was said)" and more about him disagreeing that it's wrong.

I'm against banning books for the same reasons I'm against banning pot. Though I can understand where Spooony is coming from, since he is still convinced that pot is harmful or evil or something.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm against banning books for the same reasons I'm against banning pot. Though I can understand where Spooony is coming from, since he is still convinced that pot is harmful or evil or something. In the weed thread I actually said that I didn't care and that I wouldn't vote on it.

I don't think it's evil, but I do think that it's harmful. Maybe not by the actual drug being harmful but the culture that surrounds it. (And I don't mean physically harmful because, well, that just doesn't happen from weed.)

Anyway... I consider my view on it a closed issue so let's not send this thread off topic.

Originally posted by Robtard
Despite the subject of any giving book being specific? Very odd. By those same grounds, only the user is accountable and the maker/publisher/creator can NEVER be held accountable, no matter what they produce. Company makes a rape-kit and instructions on how to best do it, sorry, not accountable; it's solely Jimmy's fault for buying and using it, solely. It's not so black and white always, dude.

"Literature is an art form" is too broad a term. On those same grounds, anything under the label of "art" shouldn't/couldn't be banned. Pictures of murdered people, child-pornography, animal-torture films etc. All "art". Just listen to what your saying... And tell me if they are the same.

The things you mentioned in the second paragraph all actually effected people in their creation, a highly illegal activity had to be performed for them to exist. So not the same.

Originally posted by Mindset

The content of the book is about raping kids.

It's still "art", dude.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pyramid Scams are illegal too. See my edit above for the point I am trying to make.

wouldn't it then make more sense to ban the organization than to ban the books?

Originally posted by inimalist
wouldn't it then make more sense to ban the organization than to ban the books?

I'd think so, but legally, that might be harder. Not sure what Russia's exact angle was here.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd think so, but legally, that might be harder. Not sure what Russia's exact angle was here.

but like, if they don't attacl the ponzi scheme aspect of the church, what is to stop them from just not using L Ron's work, why not have Cruise, Smith and Hayes write up some Russian Scientianity?

Originally posted by inimalist
but like, if they don't attacl the ponzi scheme aspect of the church, what is to stop them from just not using L Ron's work, why not have Cruise, Smith and Hayes write up some Russian Scientianity?

Again, not sure of the specifics or what they were thinking and why they targeted the books and not the cult.

My thoughts, they banned the books because of the scam issue; not because they think believing in the Overlord Xeno or L. Ron as all seeing prophet is detrimental to people in of itself, at least no more than believing God became flesh or some Arab flew into heaven on a winged horse.

Censorship should exist! If i ever see "How to Kidnap and molest children under 7 - Volume 2" on the shelf anywhere, im burning the building down that night.

Russia have the right idea, if a book has the potential to turn the stupid into slaves for a made up/lost cause then ban that *****. What responsible government would want material of bad influence floating around for its citizens to read and pollute there minds with? Yes Censorship should exist, but should also be monitered.

If they slapped a label on the front of the book in huge type saying "this scientology book contains no facts about the creation of the world or human life - it is a fictional account and should not be taken literally. anyone acting on any instructions given in this book, blah blah , insight a breech of peace..blah blah" Then they could let the book be printed.

An idiot sticker really, sorta like what Great Britain has done with Ciggarettes - big Bold Black on white Type "SMOKING KILLS".

what if it is people with your kind of attitude we wanted to censor?

Originally posted by inimalist
what if it is people with your kind of attitude we wanted to censor?

Fascist! Communist! Marxist! Leninist! Elitist! Nazi!

Went through the full spectrum there.

I don't think that the Scientology texts penned by Hubbard should be banned. Sure, I think it's all a bit looney and have no interest in reading it... but it's not something that should be banned, per se. For example, I have a copy of 'Mein Kampf.' I don't adhere to Hitler's logic and I'm not anti-Semetic, but it's still interesting to read.

I could understand if, hypothetically, Scientology was single-handedly dismantling Russian culture... but it isn't, as far as I know.

'How To' books on the raping of small children, on the other hand... well, I suppose there are books about doing illicit things out there. As vile as it is, it probably should be allowed the same right as any other book. Personally, if I were in the position to do so, I'd ban it.

If the organization really does violate human rights, the individuals and organization should be dealt with through the legal system and made to stop under penalty of law.

Banning Scientology materials isn't good though, imo. Censorship rarely is. Stopping abhorrent practices and denying access to ideas are two very different things. Odd as it may seem, and as awful as the subject is, I don't think I'd censor the rape book either.

Originally posted by REXXXX
Went through the full spectrum there.

I don't think that the Scientology texts penned by Hubbard should be banned. Sure, I think it's all a bit looney and have no interest in reading it... but it's not something that should be banned, per se. For example, I have a copy of 'Mein Kampf.' I don't adhere to Hitler's logic and I'm not anti-Semetic, but it's still interesting to read.

I could understand if, hypothetically, Scientology was single-handedly dismantling Russian culture... but it isn't, as far as I know.

'How To' books on the raping of small children, on the other hand... well, I suppose there are books about doing illicit things out there. As vile as it is, it probably should be allowed the same right as any other book. Personally, if I were in the position to do so, I'd ban it.

I agree with you. If Mein Kampf had been band and destroyed, then we could not read the book and understand how Hitler was wrong, and how to stop it in the future. Even the how to do evil books, tell us how these evil people think. That gives us a weapon against those kind of people.

True enough, though not quite the line of thought I was taking.

Does everyone really think Free speech should stand, no matter the messege?

Originally posted by Juk3n
Does everyone really think Free speech should stand, no matter the messege?

You can't yell fire in a theater.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't yell fire in a theater.

Or "bomb" on an airplane. Yet some people think you should be able too, under the freedom of speech clause.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't yell fire in a theater.

You can and should. If you don't you're just letting society walk all over you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can and should. If you don't you're just letting society walk all over you.

Cause that's what happens when you do it. Clever.

So, not sure about this thread, but, yeah, I'm all about NOT censoring anything, unless minors or people are harmed in the making of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, not sure about this thread, but, yeah, I'm all about NOT censoring anything, unless minors or people are harmed in the making of.

what about if they're harmed as a result?

Originally posted by Juk3n
what about if they're harmed as a result?

Punish the offender. Duh?

Edit - Case in point, I shouldn't be able to enforce my beliefs on you. I think you should be baptized, not smoke, drink, have sex before marriage, etc. I'm certainly not going to enforce those beliefs on you. On the same token, I think words can be expressed however they like. Exceptions would be things that damage the safety of everyone, such as classified information during time of war, or something like that. I'm a patriot. lulz But, a book about how to entice and rape kids...sure, knock yourself out. Write it. If you get it published, fine. I won't purchase goods fom the store that sells those books, but I certainly won't try to make it illegal for you to express, with words, whatever you want. I expect the same form you. In other words, I hate it when someone can paint me as a hypocrit because I don't like hypocrits. make sense?

Originally posted by Juk3n
Does everyone really think Free speech should stand, no matter the messege?

Sure, I'll take you up on this:

no speach should be censored so long as people are liable for material damages which are a direct consequence of those words. (for instance, yelling fire in a theatre would be a civil matter dependant on actual damages, whereas something like "steal this book" would not be liable for actions a person makes under their own will)

if you are like actually talking about messages and not things like criminal conspiracy or confidential troop movements during a war, then I certainly believe in free speech. Murderers, rapists, terrorists, anyone deserves the right to express their opinions about all matters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Case in point, I shouldn't be able to enforce my beliefs on you. I think you should be baptized......

I'm certainly not going to enforce those beliefs on you.

Well, not while i'm alive anyway. I guess after that it's fair game.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, not while i'm alive anyway. I guess after that it's fair game.





Touche!


That post was full of win.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, not while i'm alive anyway. I guess after that it's fair game.

you honestly care if someone symbolically does something to you in a non-invasive way after you are dead?

would you be pissed if i put a hex on you?

EDIT: yes, very witty though, excuse my extremely literal mind

Originally posted by inimalist
you honestly care if someone symbolically does something to you in a non-invasive way after you are dead?

would you be pissed if i put a hex on you?

EDIT: yes, very witty though, excuse my extremely literal mind
Yes, I do. I think it would be immensely disrespectful to me and the memory i'd left.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Does everyone really think Free speech should stand, no matter the messege?

Yes, it should. Any other perspective is almost maddening. We should not simply "pick and choose" what materials to censor from society because it seems a little prejudiced. If you ban/censor one book, why not do it with another? And another? And another?

Originally posted by Ultraviolence
Yes, it should. Any other perspective is almost maddening. We should not simply "pick and choose" what materials to censor from society because it seems a little prejudiced. If you ban/censor one book, why not do it with another? And another? And another?

meh, i suppose i do to, words are words, actions are the choices we indulge after hearing the words. So i'll let you all keep your free speech as long as you decapitate the guy who read "raping kids for beginners volume 1." and started a reinactment club.

Originally posted by Juk3n
meh, i suppose i do to, words are words, actions are the choices we indulge after hearing the words. So i'll let you all keep your free speech as long as you decapitate the guy who read "raping kids for beginners volume 1." and started a reinactment club.




While I won't decapitate him, I'll certainly beat him to near death if he tries to rape, or actually rapes, any of my children or loved ones. (One of those barbaric things that would cause me to assault someone.)

.

I remember this bot! Clever design that makes it seem like it pays attention.

Also very stupid because it drops in random links.