Okay. Therefore, the person who is impelled to molest children by books, pictures, films, what have you, is less responsible than a person who engages in such an act
without being egged on. After all, a person who does it entirely of their own accord is clearly engaging in an entirely premeditated act, as opposed to a person who just gets swept up in the moment and is influenced to do things they ordinarily wouldn't have done. Correct?
This is the usual difference between first- and second-degree murder, BTW - it's a relatively well-established principle of law.
Okay. Therefore, the person who is impelled to molest children by books, pictures, films, what have you, is less responsible than a person who engages in such an act without being egged on. After all, a person who does it entirely of their own accord is clearly engaging in an entirely premeditated act, as opposed to a person who just gets swept up in the moment and is influenced to do things they ordinarily wouldn't have done. Correct? This is the usual difference between first- and second-degree murder, BTW - it's a relatively well-established principle of law. No, I disagree. A child molestor who reads this book is hardly being swept up in the moment. He reads it; he thinks about it. He likes the idea that the book condones what he wants to do. He gets ideas for defending the act he is considering. After reading the book ten times, he convinces himself to do it. He's not swept up. It's still completely premeditated. But the book has pushed him over the edge. But this is wholly irrelevant to my point anyway. Marketing a book which encourages people to rape children, and knowing that there's a (quite fair) chance that some people will be encouraged to rape as a result of reading the book, is highly immoral and wrong and should be condemned. Bezos = NAMBLA