Should books be banned from reading in schools because of language that was used when the books were written or other things?
For instance, To Kill A Mockingbird was banned from ALL schools in Florida because of the racial content and harsh reality of it, even though it is an American Classic. The book was written in 1960, when those terms were used everyday AND the author is NOT racist, she is just trying to give people a better understanding of what was going on.
Other books, such as Of Mice and Men and Grapes of Wrath have been banned from schools.
Doesn't this violate the First Amendment or something?
Does anyone have qualms about this?
I think it should be up to the individual school. I don't always know if I would agree with their ideas, but in my opinion I think that the school can choose what it wants to teach their students within limits. To consider the circumstances of the sixties, To Kill a Mockingbird may have caused more trouble than it would have helped, though now it is in several schools. For the most part, schools are a little slower on accepting outside influences, but I don't think that is always bad. Cat's Cradle and Cathcher In the Rye were both banned from High Schools, but I don't know if the true importance of those two books could be understood at that level. Not to mention the language and even, yes, the maturity (not meant in a bad way) that would have to go along with the reading. I read them both in college and the depth we went into couldn't be matched with the glossing over we did with The Scarlett Letter in HS. But I am getting wordy. What am I even talking about anymore? Time to open up another.....
Yes but do schools really have the right to try and shield teenagers from the reality of what life was back then and what it is like today? When I have kids, I would rather have them read about it than experience it first hand.
Question: Why is it either "don't do anything" or "ban it completely"? Why can't they just remove the racial slur?
Books that are biased against racism, such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn shouldn't be banned. Racial slur should be removed, though.
And no, removing something from a curriculum is not against the first amendment. Banning a book completely is, however.
No, they BANNED the book from the school. Not just removed it from the curriculum.
And why would the racial slurs be taken out? Thats what helps people learn about how hard the times were for certain ethnic groups. It also give people an idea about the hurt that people felt when they heard those racial slurs which is another incentive for people not to say them.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Yes but do schools really have the right to try and shield teenagers from the reality of what life was back then and what it is like today? When I have kids, I would rather have them read about it than experience it first hand. they shouldnt shield anything truthful from anyone. i read to kill a mocking bird when i was in the third grade along with julius ceaser (very good book) i read the whipping boy in school in fourth grade. they tried to ban of mice and men but there was a petition and the ban was eventually overruled.
Schools will always do that to material that they don't like and/or agree with.
For instance, The Lorax, one of Dr. Seuss' greatest children's books, was banned in North Carolina due to the large logging industry.
It's stupid, but stupidity seems to run rampant, especially in the public school system.
It does go against the first amendmet. It should be only to schools that agree with it.
We can never have truth and fairness with the supression of knowledge.
I do believe there are limits, you can't yell
FIRE ! in a crowded theater. And the same logic applies to reading as speaking. 4 example, I don't think books on how to make Crystal Meth, or pipe bombs should be available to children.
Having said this, I think no book should ever be banned completely.
"TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD" is one of the greatest condemnations of Racism I have ever read. The word "******" is used many times in the book. But not by the protagonist, only the antagonist.
The ****** haters in this book end up on the recieving end of the law.
If someone wants to ban this book because of the word ****** then obviously they did not read it.
PS, I am a ****** Lover! Queers and Homos too!
Originally posted by griff38
If someone wants to ban this book because of the word ****** then obviously they did not read it.
Yes, Thats a big problem in the US and in the rest of the World today
To meny people complaining about foolish stuff like that.
Like the FCC not allowing uncensored music and talk shows on the radio. If people dont like it, they can change the channel. No one is forcing them to watch or listen or read anything!
I really donґt think it should be banned. The thing Griff said about fire and pipebombs are common sense(a thing which seems to be missing in a lot of places around the USA)
No I think everyone should be able to express their oppinions and children really shouldnґt be isolated from reality.
I read about a couple of ridiculous cases in which some schools had adopted a "no-tolerance policy". The examples were extremely moronic. The US of A needs to come to itґs senses.
Originally posted by Eldritch
It's stupid, but stupidity seems to run rampant, especially in the public school system.
In the US too? *Sigh*
Banning books is wrong (apart from the more obviously harmful ones like 'The Complete Terrorist's Cookbook', or 'The Complete Anarchist's Handbook'). Period. If you think that it conveys a bad message, take issues with the message, not the book itself. In my opinion you should be able to take The Bible, Mein Kampf, The Quoran, The Torah, or Satan's Bible to school, and still be treated fairly. It's called professionalism: You may not agree with your customers' political veiws, but you damn well have to sell to them anyway.
It's about freedom of speech here.
Besides, banning a book will only: 1) Make you seem unable to counter its points, even if you are perfectly able to do so, and 2) make it attractive because it is forbidden (how many people would, for example, have read The Satanic Verses if there had been no Fatwa?).
Originally posted by Kookee
Like the FCC not allowing uncensored music and talk shows on the radio. If people dont like it, they can change the channel. No one is forcing them to watch or listen or read anything!
But if it was school curriculum it would be forced.
I can't say that I always agree with their choices in books, but I do believe that some schools are better judges of what is appropriate for their town, city, or environment in general. My school would not have allowed To Kill A Mockingbird to be read back in the day, as they say, because of the use of the N word. It is not because we (meaning the students at the time) needed to be shielded, but because it was taught to us that the use of that word was unnecessary and wrong. My parents have no problems with that book, but I don't think they would have liked it taught on the general school level. It is something that they would prefer to teach us. Now, is that always right? Probably not, but morals, values, beliefs are different wherever you come from and more often than not, school reflect the attitude of the surroundings. But don't assume that just because some schools are more conservative than say California public schools (just an example), that they are wrong and over-protective.
We're not talking about the curriculum, but the school at large.
Then, at large, I believe schools should be able to ban books it deems inappropriate to be taught to particular grades. :D
Though I don't always agree with their choices.
Originally posted by XWING5
Then, at large, I believe schools should be able to ban books it deems inappropriate to be taught to particular grades. :D
Though I don't always agree with their choices.
Again, at least to my understanding, we're talking about banning books from the premises, not removing them from the curriculum.
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Again, at least to my understanding, we're talking about banning books from the premises, not removing them from the curriculum.
Probably my misunderstanding. In that case, with the exception of the common sense stuff already mentioned, I think it is wrong. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe too many English Language books were banned from my school. :(
Originally posted by XWING5
Probably my misunderstanding. In that case, with the exception of the common sense stuff already mentioned, I think it is wrong. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe too many English Language books were banned from my school. :(
Lol. Maybe. Well, no harm done.
Like the FCC not allowing uncensored music and talk shows on the radio. If people dont like it, they can change the channel. No one is forcing them to watch or listen or read anything!
What about stuff like nazism, racism, and pro-terrorism? It has absolutely no place in our society.
I'm not talking about stuff like saying Bush's agenda to invade Iraq sucks, or to say you're embarrased your president is from your home state (Dixies). That's a political POV that supports a maybe good cause (in this case, prevention of war against Iraq).
Nazism and obviosly racist statements serve no good whatsoever, and that's why they can be safely banned.
If we ban protests against Bush, we ban democracy. If we ban nazism, we ban a bulk of anti-semitic views.
I belive that by the time the constitution was written, nobody cared too much about racism. The most offending statements made in the 1700s were not against people, religions, or ethnic groups: Nobody cared too much about minorities back then. The most offensive statements at the time were statements made against democracy. We care more today, and what we allow to communicate should be changed based on how society changes.
Nobody's forcing you to change the channel. But who's not changing the channel? The people who follow the controversial and wrong views.
As long as the censoring is sensible, fine with me. If it's not, for example, if they ban saying that the Israeli minister sucks, or that the war on Iraq is wrong, that's not sensible.
My two cents.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
What about stuff like nazism, racism, and pro-terrorism? It has absolutely no place in our society.
Nazism and obviosly racist statements serve no good whatsoever, and that's why they can be safely banned.
Nobody's forcing you to change the channel. But who's not changing the channel? The people who follow the controversial and wrong views.These are personal opinions. If someone believed that your ideals served no purpose, does that mean they should be banned? Somone out there believes in this stuff. Just as you believe in your ways. There's no need to ban it if you disagree with it. That isn't right at all.
You're right, it does serve a purpose. Good purposes? No.
Nazism, or the belief that blondes are a "master race" is proven to be a bad thing. None of the ideas where my loyalty belongs to, on the other hand, consists of starting a war to brutally destroy every minority group.
It's not just about someone disagreeing with it. It's about the idea being offensive, and being proven to serve more bad than good (supporters of nazism say that it's supposed to bring about the destruction of every minority, which is not a good thing and won't benefit society). If I chose to ban statements made by Republicans, however, that would be wrong because the Republican Party actually aims to improve society.
Less offensive communiques than nazism have been banned in the States. When the Norwegians tried to distribute our best-selling comic, Pondus, to the States, no syndicate dared release it because of its "offensive content", which consisted of overweight women beating up an idiot when he harrases them. How is that offensive? Because idiots get beaten up? Because it actually uses characters that are not A4? I really don't know. What I do know is that the States, no offense, has a skewed view on what should be allowed and what should not be allowed.
It's also forbidden to ridicule the President of the USA as a person, for the same reason as why nazism should be banned: It serves more of a destructive purpose than a good purpose.
And it's not against the First Amendment to ban the posession of certain litterature items in your own home or inside a public facilty you're in charge of. "Your rights go to my nose". If I don't want a guy to sit next to me in my home reading My Struggle, I have the right to throw him out, which certainly won't impede on his ability and right to read the book: He can do so outside. It's the same as dress code: You've got the right to wear tops, but the owner of a place also has the right to throw you out if he wants to do so.
I agree that some cases of this, such as these two people at a mall who were thrown out for wearing t-shirts saying "Give Peace a Chance" are ridiculous.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It's not just about someone disagreeing with it. It's about the idea being offensive, and being proven to serve more bad than good (supporters of nazism say that it's supposed to bring about the destruction of every minority, which is not a good thing and won't benefit society). If I chose to ban statements made by Republicans, however, that would be wrong because the Republican Party actually aims to improve society.This is what I'm talking about. If they believe that the destruction of every minority is a good thing, then they are allowed that belief. Just because you disagree with them does not make your beliefs anymore true. You say the republican party tries to improve society? What if my beliefs, and my ideas of a perfect society are in conflict with the republicans? Does that mean one of us has to be wrong, and believe in a bad thing? Or does that mean we happen to have two different beliefs on the same thing? You are allowed any belief you want, no one persons ideals are put above all others.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Less offensive communiques than nazism have been banned in the States. When the Norwegians tried to distribute our best-selling comic, Pondus, to the States, no syndicate dared release it because of its "offensive content", which consisted of overweight women beating up an idiot when he harrases them. How is that offensive? Because idiots get beaten up? Because it actually uses characters that are not A4? I really don't know. What I do know is that the States, no offense, has a skewed view on what should be allowed and what should not be allowed.You say banned, but your description says no one wanted to sell it. That is two different things. If I wrote a comic about love, but no one wanted to publish it, does that mean that love is banned in the States?
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It's also forbidden to ridicule the President of the USA as a person, for the same reason as why nazism should be banned: It serves more of a destructive purpose than a good purpose.
I've never heard anyone say it was forbidden to ridicule the president. If that was true, it sure isn't enforced. Read a few politcal cartoons, or watch a political comedian on television.
Okay, here's what I meant.
Republicans "claim to" work to improve society, thus they should be allowed free speech, as long as it doesn't break any laws.
Nazis, on the other hand, while claiming they're going to save the world, want to destroy it. That, and they're hated by so many people, mostly in Europe and Israel. As I said, it's not about disagreeing, it's about knowing what to allow and what not to allow. Nazis aren't going to do anything good. Ever. That's not something that's "believed", it's a fact. The starting of WW II proves that.
But you CANT ban Nazism, because everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Just as you cannot ban the KKK, even though their entire purpose is to be extreme racists and hate minorities. If you start telling people what they can and cannot believe in then you are taking away their free will and ability to actually BE a person.
Eagle, you have to realize that it's a hideous to try to hide the past. I know reading about Nazism isn't going to be very productive in and of itself, but people must be allowed to know things like this. Hiding the problem doesn't eliminate it. The public must have access to it for seeing all sides of the issue.
Banning nazism isn't going to remove it. People won't hear about it anymore, but it'll still exist, and I think knowledge of it makes it less appealing.
I didn't see that point, and seeing it, I realize it's a good one.
Still, I don't believe it'll hide the past to ban expression of nazism. We still have history classes, which might even be allowed to show swastika symbols. And countries that "forget" about nazism will still have bunkers and air raid sirens and blast shelters from WW II to remind them.
But it's a good point nonetheless. I'll keep that in mind.
You focus on nazis too much. You think they should be banned. I argue that their ideals are and should be allowed. So, if the nazis were to be banned, what about their ideals? Those would still be around. Nazi is just a name, a title. So, the ideals and thoughts will always be allowed, no one can be the thought police.
C'jais:
Banning nazism isn't going to remove it. People won't hear about it anymore, but it'll still exist, and I think knowledge of it makes it less appealing.
munik:
You focus on nazis too much. You think they should be banned. I argue that their ideals are and should be allowed. So, if the nazis were to be banned, what about their ideals? Those would still be around. Nazi is just a name, a title. So, the ideals and thoughts will always be allowed, no one can be the thought police.
But the society with these ideas is ill. Of course it's all hard to treat and I can not prepose any policy to get rid of nazism, racism or anything. I think that it goes a bit deeper. The problem we're facing is censore. But it's just an attempt of resolving bigger problem. Bad education or bad direction of it. If people studied history, philosophy etc (implicitly). they would never ever put ideals of nazism to their decision. We just don't want to learn from other's mistakes always making them ourselves first
And it's not world experience we should count on as it shows nowadays that people don't forget nazism (and France for example is suffering from it). It's not the majority that we should look at because the majority of people worldwide has ideals comparible with nazism
We don't have choice but to ban nazism facing increasing problem of people who join nazistic movement not knowing anything better in their life because they were somehow offended by democracy for their parents not being rich and not bying them a bike or a dose. That is how it is I think. We ban nazism (or anything else) we get more nazistic sects, we permit nazism ideals in the society we expirience immidiately nazistic revolution and 3rd WW and other known consequences.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
What about stuff like nazism, racism, and pro-terrorism? It has absolutely no place in our society.
[...]
Nazism and obviosly racist statements serve no good whatsoever, and that's why they can be safely banned.
If we ban protests against Bush, we ban democracy. If we ban nazism, we ban a bulk of anti-semitic views.
Following up on what others have also said, you cannot simply make an arbitrary judgement of what is good and bad. If you think that something is "obviously stupid/bad/useless", then let them be published. Then everyone can see for himself that they are.
There is a fine line, however, because some things threaten the existance of the state (such as religion (including Nazism, Communism, and Facism)). These things should be combatted. However, this is not neccessairily best done by banning them from public. Sweden tried to daemonize Nazism by disassociation, they were utterly silent about Nazism, it got absolutely zero press, zero public attention. And yet Sweden has more neo-nazists pro capita than any other Scandinavian country.
France, on the other hand, is currently establishing an Islamic Synode, and I think that Chirac is on to something there. Some things are best silenced by dragging them out in broad daylight, and letting everyone see for himself how no-good they are. And if that fails, then at least they have a Synode that can dictate the doctrines. Saves the trouble of rooting out treasonous preachers.
Originally posted by munik
no one can be the thought police.
A very good point.....once we start banning ideals and people's forms of expression, we come closer and closer to making 1984 a reality.
(1984....book by Orson Wells..least I think he was the author....good book, read it if you haven't, it might change some of your minds on banning nazism and such)
Huckleberry Finn is one of the greatest books I have read (most of it), and is one of the most frequently banned books. It is considered inappropriate for schools because the way Blacks are portrayed, as seemingly stupid slaves.
While in fact Jim, the slave shown most in the book, is a character of much depth and intelligence. Jim is seen fleeing down the Mississippi alongside Huck, running away from people out to capture him, and put him back into slavery. First off, Jim must have been smart enough to escape. Second, Jim encounters different people, but is able to make himself seem helpless, hiding behind a facade, and he is able to continue on his journey to freedom. These are only some examples of Jims intelligence, and only one example of the stupidity of banning books.
Only books with explicit images should be banned from schools. Religious books should not be banned with the requirement of having books from many religions, atleast 50 (possible considering almost every tribe in the world has a religion) This includes mythology. Religious text also cannot be mandatory reading. Hate material should be available but only if it is not mandatory, such as kkk, nazi books, socialistic books and books about white descrimination but should be for reference and education only. Darwinism is also a form of religion, although i believe in both (my own religion pretty much) so it should not be mandatory.
Basically everything should be available, but only for educational purpose (and porn is not this, there fore no explicit images) this could probably include joke books and things like that aswell.
Yes, I've read '84 and Huck Finn.
Okay, so what about controversial books like the Protocols of Zion or My Struggle? Just asking.
There is a fine line, however, because some things threaten the existance of the state (such as religion (including Nazism, Communism, and Facism)). These things should be combatted. However, this is not neccessairily best done by banning them from public. Sweden tried to daemonize Nazism by disassociation, they were utterly silent about Nazism, it got absolutely zero press, zero public attention. And yet Sweden has more neo-nazists pro capita than any other Scandinavian country.
That, however, is not banning. Something can be banned and still get massive attention. And even if some stuff is legal, it might only be de facto legal.
Remember that story about the two students being lynched burning a US Flag in the middle of a school? Flag burning is legal, and most likely some students lynching those kids thought it should be until it was thrown in their faces. Same with nazism in Norway. It was legal until they killed this immigrant. If a neo-nazi gang holds a demonstration now, they'll be arrested. Good riddance.
Now, I understand both sides. I don't hate Soviets, although I realize tons of people do. If someone made such a big fuzz about the hammer and sickle.. well, I'm not offended by it, but I see that it serves no purpose (not like the christian cross, which many people were killed under, but is still being used as a peaceful symbol today, more or less). I don't think it should be banned, but if it was, I wouldn't protest it.
With banning I mean wearing something in public or publishing something. In my opinion only, though.
So....I'm not certain what you're saying.....but you want to ban being able to be a nazi in public or publishing stuff like that?
You just....can't do that...because there is no way to define WHAT can be banned and what cannot. You find that nazi upsetting and want to ban him, but he finds that Christian upsetting, and wants to ban him. and some people think that star wars is upsetting and should be banned.......WHO gets to define what is bad and what isn't? Everyone is different, there ARE people who believe in the ideals of nazism, and communism, and christianity, and star wars....
Edit- post may not make a LOT of sense....it's late, i'm tired, and it was a long day.
There's no argument between freedom of speach yadda yadda. Whatever your orthodox argument is...
It's a choice of we, as a society, choosing ignorant bliss, or accepting what has, is and ever will be and attemping to build upon it to create something better than ignorance ever could be. Most people would rather choose ignorant bliss because most people already live inside a tiny personal bubble.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
(1984....book by Orson Wells..least I think he was the author....good book, read it if you haven't, it might change some of your minds on banning nazism and such)
Close. Orwell (Animal Farm, 1984), actually. Very striking book. Goes under the skin of how religion works (incase you're wondering how that last word got there; all totalitarian regimes are religious, and all religious regimes are totalitarian).
Edit- post may not make a LOT of sense....it's late, i'm tired, and it was a long day.
Don't worry. It made a load of sense. Not kidding.
You just....can't do that...because there is no way to define WHAT can be banned and what cannot.
That's the problem that's faced by countries that ban nazism.
Following up on what others have also said, you cannot simply make an arbitrary judgement of what is good and bad.
So I can't take this group that killed 10 million Russians and 6 million Jews and call them bad?
I know what you're saying, but some stuff just is bad. Nazis, terrorists, and communists are disliked by most of society, right? So I think we should learn about books like Mein Kampf, but it should not be readily available to the public from bookstores. I know you can't ban the swastika, but anti-semitism can be banned (and already is, as far as I know).
Consider the fact that a lot of people hate nazism. I simply cannot find an analogy to use against Americans because nothing as bad has happened to the USA in modern time (ie. last 100-0 years). 911 doesn't even come close, it's just 3000 dead. WW II was 10 000 000+ dead.
And stop saying banning stuff is ignoring history. They don't sell Mein Kampf in Norwegian bookstores, yet I perfectly well know what it is and have known it since early elementary school.
you should be able to take The Bible, Mein Kampf, The Quoran, The Torah, or Satan's Bible to school, and still be treated fairly.
You can't compare the bible with Mein Kampf, for obvious reasons, but if a book is legal in the country, I guess it should be allowed.
Expect to be treated fairly? Uhm.. yeah. I guess that if someone burns a US flag in the commons of your school, you and the rest of the 1000 people in the commons would just stand there and watch him and be proud because we've got freedom of speech? It's been tried, my friend.
Likewise, you can't just walk up to me and tell me that I should treat a person who throws blatant nazism in my face fairly. If he's reading My Struggle to study nazism, fine. If he's being obviously nazistic, that's not fine.
Banning books is wrong (apart from the more obviously harmful ones like 'The Complete Terrorist's Cookbook', or 'The Complete Anarchist's Handbook'). Period.
If you're saying Anarchist books should be illegal, you're contradicting yourself because there are, quote, "people out there who thinks [it's] good and you simply make an arbitrary judgement of what is good and bad" (forgot who said that).
You can't compare the bible with Mein Kampf, for obvious reasons,
Millions and MILLIONS of people have been killed in the name of Christianity, so therefore christians = bad, and therefore the bible needs to be banned...........
and at what point does murder become something that can be banned? Is Hitler killing millions really any worse than some random murderer killing and raping 4 or 5? Does increasing the numbers make murder more wrong? If you said yes then tell that to the families of one of those dead girls.
You know.... Why does this even have to do with Nazis and Hitler? Stalin was way more brutal than Hitler could have drempt to be. He got away with it because he did it to his own people, rather than a "majority minority"...
So does that mean we should boycott everything Russian? Possibly. Do I personally believe so? Absolutely not. Banning books that have to do with Hitler and Nazi Germany won't do anything. It's just denying what's right in front of us. In fact, that's almost COPYING Hitler. Hitler didn't like Jews. Hitler burned Jewish books. We don't like Hitler. We're "burning" Hitler's books. Now, personally, I don't agree with Hitler's views. But who is to say that we're right and he was wrong? Just because the majority says it's right doesn't make them right. That's what America is FOUNDED on. And that's EXACTLY why the idea of banning books is ludicrious
I already tryed to change the subject we're really discussing. It's not banning we're fighting. It's a symptom and we need to fight with the desease first.
Although Stalin killed millions both russians and jews (as he hated them perhaps as much as Hitler did) he's still considered a leader and great chieftain by mostly old people who outlived the war. Lately this problem becomes actual because more and more teenagers join the party. These kids have seen or read nothing else than books about Lenin (who also killed millions) or Stalin and only prey for socialism's rebirth not because it's something right just because they don't know anything else. The same (even bigger) happens with nazi party in Russia. These people just wanna feel their participation in something valueable (they don't realize what they are valueing) as they were kicked in their lives. Regarding them I can feel only pitty
The same happens in France. But somehow the rate is lower in Germany.(maybe they learn better)
Now, personally, I don't agree with Hitler's views. But who is to say that we're right and he was wrong? Just because the majority says it's right doesn't make them right. That's what America is FOUNDED on. And that's EXACTLY why the idea of banning books is ludicrious
We all have here unargueable evidence about nazism, socialism being wrong 100%. I guess none here is to say otherwise.
We must fight the ill mind of single person and not blame christianity for their ill leaders (historically) or nazi, socialistic utopia for it's "envention" by ill people.
You're right about american society. Of course democracy is considered to be governed by the opinion of the people which is expressed by its representetives but it shouldn't put itself into extreme and become absurd. Till lately America was pointing to this direction but I feel that it's about to change nonetheless. In the end unfortunately we have to ban those books or greater problems would arise but still I keep optimistic about those matters remembering that we sometimes just like to invent problems (like ecology) which is resolved naturally
Homuncul, I agree we should also educate people.
Millions and MILLIONS of people have been killed in the name of Christianity, so therefore christians = bad, and therefore the bible needs to be banned...No.
They're still two different things. Almost everyone who practice christianity do not do it in a harmful way. Everyone who practice nazism, however, practice anti-semitism and prejudice against minorities, because that's the definition of nazism. I see your reasoning, but I strongly disagree with it.
and at what point does murder become something that can be banned? Is Hitler killing millions really any worse than some random murderer killing and raping 4 or 5? Does increasing the numbers make murder more wrong? If you said yes then tell that to the families of one of those dead girls.
If some book is released by a rapist promoting rape, I'd want that book too to be banned, wouldn't you? Or would you want that, too, to be available to public because "some people think it's a good thing"? I never said rape was good, in fact, I despise rapists.
So does that mean we should boycott everything Russian?
Er.. no?
Do I personally believe so? Absolutely not.
Good, you had me scared for a second there.
Banning books that have to do with Hitler and Nazi Germany won't do anything. It's just denying what's right in front of us. In fact, that's almost COPYING Hitler. Hitler didn't like Jews. Hitler burned Jewish books. We don't like Hitler. We're "burning" Hitler's books.
You don't realize there's a difference between reasons for hating then. Quick, name one death camp run by the Jews. Quick, name one holocaust carried out by Jews. Quick, tell me how Jews have killed 6,000,000+ members of a single group (the nazis killed this many Jews).
There's a difference between burning the memoars of someone who started WW II; and burning books written by a group that hardly ever did anything wrong (maybe except from invading Palestine, according to some).
Now, personally, I don't agree with Hitler's views. But who is to say that we're right and he was wrong? Just because the majority says it's right doesn't make them right. That's what America is FOUNDED on. And that's EXACTLY why the idea of banning books is ludicrious.
Er.. I hate flaming, but I can't say this without coming close to flaming: It's not that the majority says so that makes Hitler bad. It's that he freaking started WW II, where over 30 million people died and two atomic bombs were dropped!! (duh). What, do you think we want My Struggle banned because we need someone to hate?
It's the same thing with burning flags, to say so again. Americans widely accept freedom of speech, right? But would I get away with burning the Stars and Stripes in the middle of a shopping mall? Or in the commons of a High School or College? No. Why? I won't answer that: If you don't know, go figure.
Do you realize that we (Europeans and Jews) feel the same way about My Struggle? Or that a refugee from an anarchy feels the same way (or worse) about the book "How to Overthrow the Republic and install an anarchy for Dummies"?
Look at Scandinavia. My Struggle is banned. However, every child in elementary school knows what the book is. So much for erasing history:rolleyes:.
Even though I think flag burning is silly and pointless, I would not hate somebody because they burned a flag in front of me. I wouldn't do anything to them, because that is their RIGHT.....If America takes away people's rights to read materials they want to or practice the beliefs that they want to, then American loses everything it was founded on, and takes a step closer to becoming just like Nazi Germany......:disaprove
Even though I think flag burning is silly and pointless, I would not hate somebody because they burned a flag in front of me. I wouldn't do anything to them, because that is their RIGHT.....If America takes away people's rights to read materials they want to or practice the beliefs that they want to, then American loses everything it was founded on, and takes a step closer to becoming just like Nazi Germany......
I don't know maybe you're not right
The function of world tendencies expressed in some movements is something like sinusoidal through time. On maximum we have extreme (nazism) and on minimum - indifference (something like primary Buddhism). But actually every society have to step from time to time in to the level of maximum and minimum. Somehow after the last american elections I believed that America passed another minimum level now the time comes closer to the maximum again (starting from september to war, like it was 50 years ago) and it seems that after all distrust about the matter America finally passed it with minimum of bad consequences
Than it comes to this. If burning of american flag had no bad consequences I would agree with not banning it just considering those who do that a little bit nervous. But it has consequences. It says to everyone to do with America just what they did with the flag.
Futhermore human right is something very slippy . So is it really their right to burn american flag?. If it's outside America it should not be banned (necessarily but I would do it in any case). If it's in America itself it's like for americans to betray their own state. It's not just showing their position about's it's government actions. For this demostrations are permitted. But trying to attract attention with such methods anywhere in the world is something of no healthy right.
In the end I'm optimist and I don't think that it's possible for any state these days to come to something like Nazi Germany but on the other hand we have to watch carefully for those who step into something that can in future lead to another Third Reich.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
No.
They're still two different things. Almost everyone who practice christianity do not do it in a harmful way.
Do Nazists? Being a nazist doesn't equate to being a killer either, y'know. I means supporting something which has killed millions of people in its name. It's exactly the same as supporting the church, the institution Christianity. Many more people have died in Christianity's name than Hitler's, yet we're still giving Christians a fair chance.
And rightly so. Christians as individuals usually set a good example, but banning Nazism as a cause would require the same to be done to Christianity.
If some book is released by a rapist promoting rape, I'd want that book too to be banned, wouldn't you?
Absolutely not. That line of thought is unreasonable in the extreme. Again, it's a return to book burnings we see here. You think it's dangerous to let such books circulate in society, whereas I see a danger in such a mean of thought control. And that's what it is - thought control. You deny someone their right to publish books becuase of your own subjective opinion of the theme. That's horrid.
Regarding Russia, you do realize that communists can be rightfully compared to Nazism, don't you? More people have been killed in the name of Communism than Nazism. They're exactly the same, right down to breaking down society and having one man as the leader of genocides.
If you want Nazism banned, you must ban Communism as well, otherwise I'd call you a hypocrite.
You don't realize there's a difference between reasons for hating then. Quick, name one death camp run by the Jews. Quick, name one holocaust carried out by Jews. Quick, tell me how Jews have killed 6,000,000+ members of a single group (the nazis killed this many Jews).
Communists killed over 35 million. Christianity killed far more than even that. What's your point? That Nazism is the greater enemy, despite the lower bodycount?
There's a difference between burning the memoars of someone who started WW II; and burning books written by a group that hardly ever did anything wrong (maybe except from invading Palestine, according to some).
Oh, so it's not their line of thought that offends you, it's the past of the authors? If I wrote a book about rape, you wouldn't ban it because I haven't done anything wrong? Again, I refer to the bodycount math above.
It's not that the majority says so that makes Hitler bad. It's that he freaking started WW II, where over 30 million people died and two atomic bombs were dropped!!
Did he? Last time I checked, it was a number of reasons that resulted in the monster Hitler.
Again, I don't see you wanting to ban Das Kapital even though it's done more bad than Nazism. You want to ban Mein Kampf because of you own subjective stance on it, and that's what's leading to totalitarian regimes. Oh, you have perfectly good intentions, but so did Hitler. You warp the past and create wisted arguments to support your own opinion. Not fact, or human rights.
What, do you think we want My Struggle banned because we need someone to hate?
Yes. Hitler has been used as The Scapegoat of All Evil in many matters, but he is not solely to blame. What about USA, which didn't back up on the League of Nations, and allowed Hitler to rearm Germany, thus blatantly ignoring the Pacifism=Wrong idea that they so loudly proclaim now? What about the German people, who were disillusioned and needed an enemy after their national pride had been burned in war? What about France and England, who raped Germany economically and thus created social unrest and a search for a Fьhrer?
Hitler is only to blame, no?
It's the same thing with burning flags, to say so again. Americans widely accept freedom of speech, right? But would I get away with burning the Stars and Stripes in the middle of a shopping mall? Or in the commons of a High School or College? No. Why? I won't answer that: If you don't know, go figure.
Legally you would get away with it. Practically, not so.
The same thing with books. You must be allowed to publish them, but if people aren't interested in buying them, it's your own fault, not the system's.
Banning Mein Kampf won't change a damn thing. The wrong people will still let themselves be led and find someone to hate. The right people will still want to change a flawed system, even if it means they'll have to reinvent history. It doesn't matter.
Do you realize that we (Europeans and Jews) feel the same way about My Struggle? Or that a refugee from an anarchy feels the same way (or worse) about the book "How to Overthrow the Republic and install an anarchy for Dummies"?
Yes, we hate it so fervently because our history books condemn it. Anarchy was given a chance to work during the Spanish civil war. It gave a massive moral boost to the fighting people. Now however, it'll never be allowed again, because people like you are set on banning it unreasonably. What if anarchy was a better system than a republic? We'll never know, because the thought police are already out there and doing its work.
Why are you after Anarchism now? What things has it done which makes it so incredibly inhuman and worse than Communism? Subjective opinion mein freund. Nothing more than that.
Will we even be allowed to discuss Nazism or Anarchism 50 years from now? I don't know, but I do know that some people are unwillingly creeping their way towards such a state.
Look at Scandinavia. My Struggle is banned.
No it isn't. Maybe in Norway it is, but not where I live.
However, every child in elementary school knows what the book is. So much for erasing history:rolleyes:.
Elementary school? Not so. Gymnasium? Hardly. University level? Maybe, but as they've never f*cking read the damn thing, how can they possibly hope to make an informed, factual opinion of it? They know it's a bad book, because people told them so. So much for warping history.
Sorry for coming on you so hard, but freedom of speech is something I take very seriously.
yeah......what he said.......I agree 100% with everything C'jais said, I don't think freedom of speech should EVER be curbed simply because you're spreading bad ideas.
I'm with Eagle here
C'Jais:
And rightly so. Christians as individuals usually set a good example, but banning Nazism as a cause would require the same to be done to Christianity.
No it will not. Christianity is something that formed our moral norms we accept for over a millenia to present moment while nazism is not. It proved futile and furthermore distructive.
Absolutely not. That line of thought is unreasonable in the extreme. Again, it's a return to book burnings we see here. You think it's dangerous to let such books circulate in society, whereas I see a danger in such a mean of thought control. And that's what it is - thought control. You deny someone their right to publish books becuase of your own subjective opinion of the theme. That's horrid.
No I think you're wrong. There's no such thing as freedom in perspective. There're always limitations. We only decide how much of them we need and it's something fundamental. So there's no such thing as non-thought control. You want more freedom for your thought but you have it.
Rape book is not only banned because of someone's subjective opinion but because of right of those censorers to defy what fits the moral norms of the society and what's not. Rape certainly does not. So it's publish should be banned. Ill people still can find any information they need through web or their own imagination and of course it's just a matter of time till a rapist would show he's claws and such books would only make it faster. But a normal person should not be provocated in a propaganda way because such a book would only be banned if rape is glamorized there. And those books that condemn rape are in the society in numbers.
Of course I'm not agreed when my favourite songs concerning september, planes and blood are banned. It's a limitation over the top. I want to fight with these limitations
Again, I don't see you wanting to ban Das Kapital even though it's done more bad than Nazism. You want to ban Mein Kampf because of you own subjective stance on it, and that's what's leading to totalitarian regimes. Oh, you have perfectly good intentions, but so did Hitler. You warp the past and create wisted arguments to support your own opinion. Not fact, or human rights.
Hitler was ill. He had mixed conceptions of good and bad. You should look at his childhood.
Yes, we hate it so fervently because our history books condemn it. Anarchy was given a chance to work during the Spanish civil war. It gave a massive moral boost to the fighting people. Now however, it'll never be allowed again, because people like you are set on banning it unreasonably. What if anarchy was a better system than a republic? We'll never know, because the thought police are already out there and doing its work.
Yeah that's a bad thing, the same as banning songs. But Anarchy is something everybody knows what is and we get knowledge about and not just subjective in schools. We learn it's factual goals and we're explained why it doesn't work. Or these goals are also subjective because author of a school book was a human? Or you mean that I can't imagine anarchy implicitly in all of it's forms because I lived only in republic?
Elementary school? Not so. Gymnasium? Hardly. University level? Maybe, but as they've never f*cking read the damn thing, how can they possibly hope to make an informed, factual opinion of it? They know it's a bad book, because people told them so. So much for warping history.
After all everything depends on them. They can get it if they're really really interested.
But realization of some things after all comes only with experience.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
You can't compare the bible with Mein Kampf, for obvious reasons, but if a book is legal in the country, I guess it should be allowed.
No, you're right. It's a gross insult to Nazism, but somehow I don't care very much.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
If you're saying Anarchist books should be illegal, you're contradicting yourself because there are, quote, "people out there who thinks [it's] good and you simply make an arbitrary judgement of what is good and bad" (forgot who said that).
Aah. Well, the Complete Anarchist's cookbook is a book on how to make bombs 'n stuff like that from household materials. So, no, I reckon I'm not contradicting myself here, as this is merely the eqivalent of gun control. It's not just any Anarchistic book.
You don't realize there's a difference between reasons for hating then. Quick, name one death camp run by the Jews. Quick, name one holocaust carried out by Jews. Quick, tell me how Jews have killed 6,000,000+ members of a single group (the nazis killed this many Jews).
Jenin, Jenin, Never had the power to do so, but would happily do it to the entire Arabian world if they did. And the feeling is mutual.
Christianity is something that formed our moral norms we accept for over a millenia to present moment while nazism is not. It proved futile and furthermore distructive.
If you kill one man, you are a murderer, if you kill ten thousand, you are a hero. The fact that they carried out their insane and murderous practises for more than 100 times as long as the Nazis suddenly makes them accepted. And by the way, you're wrong about the norms, etc. They were made by those who opposed Christianity during the Age of Enlightenment, and later The Modern Breakthrough.
No I think you're wrong. There's no such thing as freedom in perspective. There're always limitations. We only decide how much of them we need and it's something fundamental. So there's no such thing as non-thought control. You want more freedom for your thought but you have it.
Point.
Rape book is not only banned because of someone's subjective opinion but because of right of those censorers to defy what fits the moral norms of the society and what's not. Rape certainly does not. So it's publish should be banned.
And in some underdeveloped places, like the US, porn is against the norm of society. But if the "norm of society" was not merely dictated by a little group of priests and other no-good well-fare abusers, then this norm would be embraced by the majority without needing the bother of censorship.
What I'm getting at is that 99.99+% of the population will be able to read the book and still won't commit rape. This says to me that the rapists are wrong, not the books. Which again says to me that the rapists would probably commit rape anyway. Which says to me that you're sacrificing something valuable for little or no gain. Which is a stupid thing to do.
Hitler was ill. He had mixed conceptions of good and bad. You should look at his childhood.
Objection: Relevance?
Or these goals are also subjective because author of a school book was a human?
Yes.
Or you mean that I can't imagine anarchy implicitly in all of it's forms because I lived only in republic?
Yes. But that's not relevant either.
Books are banned when people are afraid of the ideas they may posses, however; immoral or unpopular a book may be. It and its "ideas" are still a part of free speech.
"To Kill a Mockingbird" didn't support racism it was part of the story the "Mein Kampf" though I haven't read it. I believe supports fascism. If I know Hitler that knotty boy.
Am I wrong in assuming pornography is banned from schools already? The only reason someone hasn't made that illegal is the part in the constitution where it says "freedom of speech" or something to that effect. When I was in High School 7 years ago they had a copy mined you only one of the Satanic Bible in the school library.
Just because a book supports a negative view it shouldn't be banned from a school. If you do that than your teaching is one sided whether right or wrong point of view. It's the teachers and the parents’ jobs to help the children interpret what they read and understand what's going on. Christians have been doing that with the Bible for a long time. The problem is Parents want someone else to teach their kids right from wrong.
The problem here if they banned a book like “To Kill a Mockingbird” it was probably banned because of Political Correctness not because it had racism in the story. Some kid’s mother probably read the book with them and took offence. They complained or threaten a law suit or whatever I don’t know that’s how these things happen. I could understand a little more if it was a book about racism and it was written by a KKK Red Dragon or something, but than it would still be protected.
Didn’t Hitler bann alot of books because of their nonfascist ideas or maybe he just didn’t like competition.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Books are banned when people are afraid of the ideas they may posses, however; immoral or unpopular a book may be. It and its "ideas" are still a part of free speech.
*Promptly removes Mr. Jack from Ignore List.*
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
"To Kill a Mockingbird" didn't support racism it was part of the story the "Mein Kampf" though I haven't read it. I believe supports fascism. If I know Hitler that knotty boy.
Nah. Facism was inspired by Mein Kampf, but the book (im)proper is Nazistic. Not much of a difference, though.
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Am I wrong in assuming pornography is banned from schools already?
Nothing I know of. Can't see why it should be, though.
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
It's the teachers and the parents’ jobs to help the children interpret what they read and understand what's going on. Christians have been doing that with the Bible for a long time.
Yeah. Christians have been doing that to the Bible ever since it was written... First to make it appear harmless, then to take complete and utter control over people's lives, then, after being beaten into submission, to make it seem innocious... Am I the only one spotting a pattern here?
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Didn’t Hitler bann alot of books because of their nonfascist ideas or maybe he just didn’t like competition.:rolleyes:
Yeah, he did.
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Yeah. Christians have been doing that to the Bible ever since it was written... First to make it appear harmless, then to take complete and utter control over people's lives, then, after being beaten into submission, to make it seem innocious... Am I the only one spotting a pattern here? No I have seen it all my life. It sticks out like a swastika in a white circle on a red background. I think I am the only person to ever read the bible and get pissedoff.