Book Banning.....are you for or against?

[BigDaddy44]

First, lets define book banning. To me, it means in any way restricting the reading, carrying, displaying, or otherwise handling of books. Its quite simple actually .... book banning means telling someone they can't read, have, or display a book.

Are you for or opposed to book banning? Is this a universal position? Or do you make exceptions?

[bowens43]

1. All books should be banned dammit!!

[Orrex]

2. Mods--please ban bowens43's reply

I find it very very offensive and stuff.

[lame54]

32. Mods - Please ban Orrex reply...

and then ban this reply

just shut down the whole damn site

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Orrex]

76. After you ban lame54's reply, please ban this one

Only then can the madness be brought to an end.

[fascisthunter]

3. If One is Caught Proselytizing a Religious Belief

then the that book (BIBLE) should be banned. Want to learn about theocracy? Go to a fucking religious school or teach theocracy without proselytizing.

I really despise religious folks who push their shit on people and PRETEND they aren't. Such BS.

[BigDaddy44]

6. So you're in favor of selective banning of books

Thank you. I appreciate your intellectual honesty.

What should the punishment be for possession of said banned book? A fine? Prison? I'm curious.

[fascisthunter]

11. Nice Try Bubba

Keep your religion of our public schools. It's obvious you would love for us to treat your religion the way your own religion never treats the rest or us. Ban books? Lololol... nice try. Have you even considered how religions ban PEOPLE nevermind books? Nah... bigotry is ok when it's a religion and being divisive as most religions tend to be is A-OK!

If this were a book being taght in a class about religion or even history, that would be fine. But you don't get to advertise your faith, as this religious nut was trying to do.

There's my honesty, too bad you can't afford to reciprocate the same.

[BigDaddy44]

16. "my religion"? "you"?

I asked a question, and you're attacking the messenger. Its a simple question. This is an intellectual forum where questions of the day are discussed. Not everything is black and white, so sometimes interesting interactions arise.

You're saying some books should be banned. Or at least restricted. I believe the same as you do by the way. I am curious why all of a sudden asking the question is a basis for attack though.

[timtom]

59. Wow! Are you ever armed and loaded for bear.

And with a hair-trigger, too. I sense deep issues.

[timtom]

61. Excuse me.

I thought this was a stand-alone thread. I didn't realize that it is a sort of response to another issue.

Disregard my first reply.

This is a bit different than banning books.

[Smith_3]

12. He is not against posession.

It should be obvious.

[AlCzervik]

4. i am against book banning and burning even if it's a book i hate. Censorship sucks.

cretins ban books.

[Iris]

14. agreed - Censorship Sucks!

[Crabby Appleton]

51. thirded nt

[mainegreen]

5. ...

[BigDaddy44]

7. Its a very pretty picture

But its not a strawman at all. Its a real issue that is being discussed on this board. I'm curious as to your position though.

[mainegreen]

10. Your post is an attempt to build a base to attack another thread on this forum..

without identifying the other thread or adding the information of that other thread into context.
You are using a definition of book banning that would not really be considered book banning taken into the context of this other thread.
It was no more banning than disallowing putting a hustler on the desk is banning.

[BigDaddy44]

13. Then your answer is yes.

Based on content, you would support banning particular books. Like Hustler. Thats fine. There's no reason to apologize. Why are you afraid of a bit of intellectual discourse?

[mainegreen]

18. As if. It's a matter of employees following employer policy while on the job.

Plus, show me the public school that

a) bans teachers from having a bible
b) doesn't have a bible in the school library

[BigDaddy44]

19. If its in the library, why can't it be on a desk?

If you take it off the shelves of the library, and place it on a table, is that allowed? Are there any other books that a teacher should be able to keep in a drawer, but not on the top of a desk? Should a teacher be allowed to keep a copy of Hustler in his drawer?

My point in all of this is that we often instantly would respond to the question of whether or not a book should be banned (or restricted) by saying "no, of course not." But the world isn't that simple.

[mainegreen]

28. DId you read the referring article?

The problem really wasn't that it was 'just on his desk'. You're right; the world isn't that simple.

That's why for some teachers who can't seem to not stick to teaching end up needing stricter rules than others.

[BigDaddy44]

30. Actually, it IS that simple

There were other items, and he agreed to remove all of them. Now its just a stack of books on a shelf.

Previous students have stated that he never discussed the books or religion in any way. There is no indication at all that he didn't "stick to teaching".

So, back to our original question. Are you comfortable with a government position that states a book can be IN a desk, but not ON a desk? Given the fact that said book is not referenced or discussed in any way? At this point, its not a strawman at all, and really is that simple.

[mainegreen]

31. Having religious posters on a science classrooms wall puts him in the naughty teacher category.

Privileges revoked. As noted in the other thread, he's teaching a portion of the curriculum with a religious bent, though a particular subtle and subversive ploy.

But yes let's go back to the original question, but lets take your phony mis-representative phrasing of it out:

Are you comfortable with a{n} government employer's position that states a book can be IN a desk, but not ON a desk?

Not just yes, but hell yes, especially when said employee has been disruptive in the past in a way relating to said book.

Every time you attempt to twist and re-interpret the basic issue here, I'm going to go back to the original point.

[BigDaddy44]

34. Ok, thanks

Again, I appreciate intellectual honesty.

[LanternWaste]

37. intellectual dishonesty...

"Why are you afraid of a bit of intellectual discourse?"

I think that the poster you posed this question is not in fact afraid of intellectual discourse, rather the poster is merely pointing out that many times what advertises itself as intellectual discourse is merely an indirect point of order relevant to another wholly separate discussion-- thus being disingenuous and evasive (at best).

Pointing something like that out appears to be less "afraid of intellectual discourse", but rather annoyance at intellectual dishonesty posing as discourse.

[BigDaddy44]

42. Look, its quite simple

Ask ANY progressive walking down the street, and he'll say book banning in ANY way shape or form is bad. Case in point -- read this thread!! My point by asking the question is that life isn't so simple, and reasonable people can agree to disagree on a point that on the face of it we would all agree on. Instead, oftentimes the person posing the question is accused of having some sort of agenda.

Everything is not as it appears, and even the obvious isn't obvious at all. Its what makes life interesting.

[LanternWaste]

45. Banning a book and denial of display of a book are two completely different subjects...

Banning a book and denial of display of a book are two completely different subjects...

"Everything is not as it appears..."
In this case, it would be as it appear if intellectual dishonesty, self-made definitions, and non-evasive discourse were used by the OP, it actually would be as it appears...

[BigDaddy44]

46. Are you not capable of an intelligent discussion without making accusations?

Where have I offended you? Its a question. These are thorny issues, and I'm interested in opinions. I made a definition to fill a vaccuum. If you don't like it, make your own.

So, banning and denial of display are two different subjects. Agreed. So, can denial of display be enforced in one area of a building but not in another area of a building when both areas are accessible by the same group of people?

You don't think this is a relevant question worthy of discussion? Especially given our current government and their desire to trample on free speech and privacy rights?

[LanternWaste]

53. There is no vacuum to fill-- the definitions have already been made

"So, banning and denial of display are two different subjects. Agreed. "

Then possibly, your original posit should have been "are you for or against denial of display of any books in any or all forums..."



"I made a definition to fill a vaccuum. If you don't like it, make your own."
There is no vacuum to fill-- the definitions have already been made-- by scholars and by jurists. Why not use them?

And thus my own implication that you are indeed being dishonest-- by use of your own definitions, you broaden the term and the scope of meaning to such a degree as to invalidate the original (and valid) definitions.


Edited for grammar

[BigDaddy44]

55. Some people equate denial of display with banning

I personally do not. Hence the discussion.

[ismnotwasm]

9. What a perfectly appropriate picture

(And the little one in your sig line is very cute):thumbsup:

[Orrex]

15. That guy really seems to have a stick up his but

But the sig-image is adorable!

[joeybee12]

8. Universally opposed...who decides what is banned...where do you

draw the line...I'm of the belief that we should all be exposed to all different views, even what some might consider radical, whether they be left or right...that's education, learning as much as you can, and coming to your own conclusions. I believe we'd be a much more progressive society even if everyone was exposed to right-wing nutjob ideas because being exposed to such ideas makes most (not all) realize they are insupportable ideas.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. No book should ever be completely banned. There are some that are so disgusting,

think "The Turner Diaries", that they should have limited access.

[Orrex]

23. That's functionally the same as censorship, and demands the same questions

Who governs the access to these books? On what basis? How might their governing decisions contested? To whom?

Excepting such guidelines as "age of majority" and the like (which is itself, in this context, a dubious and artificial threshold), books must be available to any who wish to read them.

If certain books contain mature themes, sexuality, or violence, then IMO parents have the authority to limit their own children's access to those books, but that's not a ban; the parents are, in effect, making a decision on their own behalf, since they are empowered/required to make decisions about their own children's education and emotional growth.

[sinkingfeeling]

38. There aren't 'restricted areas' in libraries? I could care less about sexual books or violence

in general, and agree that it's the responsibility of parents to keep inappropriate books out of their OWN children's hands. But I still believe there is a a small classification of books, that should have limited circulation. The Neo-Nazis, KKK, and other hate groups have, in the past, made their 'books' available only to those sharing their beliefs. Now, with the internet, such 'information' is available to a much wider audience. Yet, I would not expect to walk into a school or public library and find their publications. Library boards make these decisions routinely. Some libraries have copies of controversial books, but don't put them out for general access.

[Orrex]

75. Sure there are restricted areas, and there shouldn't be

Censoring disgusting works like Neo-Nazi propaganda serves only to sensationalize it, and thereby you empower the organizations that make use of it. But if that information is made publicly available, and if a wider audience learns of the disgusting hate preached by it, then a wider audience will be aware of the potential threat that the group poses.

I accept that the above view entails more than an element of wishful thinking, but censorship is a tool of propaganda that is invariably abused from the very instant that it's deployed. For every Neo-Nazi screed that's successfully suppressed, a dozen legitimate works are censored as well.

[flvegan]

20. Only if they're books about owning pit bulls.

[AlCzervik]

21. .

:rofl:

[L. Coyote]

22. Reading banned books should be a crime, but not possession!

Make them prove you read it, I say! :rofl:

The Spanish Inquisition and Censorship - http://jqjacobs.net/anthro/cannibalism.html

The Spanish Inquisition had a very significant impact on writing. Spanish controls over printing date to 1502, when a pragmatic issued by Ferdinand and Isabella made licenses for printing or importing books obligatory (Kamen 1997:103). In 1564, the Council of Trent granted bishops the general power to license book printing (Kamen 1997:103). In the case of the Catechism by Fray Luis, approval by the Council of Trent and the Pope was not sufficient to deter the inquisitors from demanding corrections before the book was allowed to circulate (Kamen 1997:111).

Various indices listed banned books. The 1559 Spanish Index even prohibited works circulating in manuscript form. The Index of Prohibited Books issued by the Council of Trent in 1564 influenced subsequent indices, including an expurgatory Index requiring the excising of offending passages from otherwise orthodox books (Kamen 1997:113). By 1583, the General Index banned 2,315 books, an increase from 700 in 1571, and the 1584 Index expurgated many more. Book burning was common at the time of discovery. The Arabic books in Granada were burned on order of a royal decree in 1501 (Kamen 1997:114). In 1552 the Inquisition ordered that heretical books be burned in public. A Jesuit working in the Barcelona Holy Office reported mountains of books burned on seven or eight occasions (Kamen 1997:114).

[Orrex]

24. I wasn't expecting that.

:evilgrin:

[shraby]

25. Are you serious? Absolutely no book should

be banned. Who has the right to decide what someone else wants to read?

[BigDaddy44]

27. I'm quite serious

Read my original definition. Do you believe NO book should be restricted in ANY way?

[shraby]

81. You know and I know there are appropriate

places for certain books. Bibles in public schools are not appropriate due to the separation clause in the consititution, but that doesn't mean they are banned to the public as a whole for reading material, the same way "Hustler" and "Penthouse" are not appropriate for school libraries but for the general public if they like those kinds of magazines they should be able to obtain them and read them. A ban on a book means it isn't appropriate for anyone to read anyplace and is the same as censorship.

[Richard Steele]

63. Yes- he's seriously DISHONEST...

What he's really got in mind here is the subject
of public school teachers displaying BIBLES in the classroom.

Sneaky, isn't he?

[BigDaddy44]

69. Why is that sneaky?

That is an absurd argument. "Yes, I'm opposed to that." "But, what about in this instance." "Okay, EXCEPT in that instance." Thats my point. What at first is a simple response isn't so simple once one looks at specific circumstances.

[lapislzi]

26. You're painting with too broad a brush

In general, I oppose all book banning. Adults should have access to the full spectrum of published material, regardless of how offensive others may find it. The only exception would be material wherein UNconsenting people or animals are harmed or exploited. And that has less to do with the people viewing the material than it does with the people producing it. And that's a different discussion.

However, there is the issue of the appropriateness of a given publication in a setting. It is inappropriate, for example, for school children to have access to pornography. Publications that depict or advocate graphic violence, hatred, and intolerance are also inappropriate in a school setting. Access to these types of materials should be monitored and possibly restricted in a school setting.

Now, if a child brings a bible to school for his personal use (and I think that's where this is going), there's no harm in that. Said child is perfectly free to proselytize others in his spare time. Others are free to listen or not. Constitutionally, however, the school can't sponsor such activity. Nor should teachers be evangelizing kids. It's an inappropriate expression of the student-teacher relationship.

Since the o/p seems to think we live in a black and white world, I guess that would mean I favor book banning. Oh well.

[slampoet]

29. If you are for any book banning you aren't for free speech.

If you aren't for free speech you aren't really an American.

You're just someone who lives here.

[JuniperLea]

33. I'll second this!

No one is forcing anyone to actually read something they don't want to read... and parents still have parental repair.

[lapislzi]

35. I'm against book banning BY THE GOVERNMENT

and its entities/instruments.

On a smaller scale though, people are free to do what they like. I am free to ban certain publications (such as anything written by ann coulter) from my home. If I owned a bookstore, I would not sell such things. As I said above, I think violence and pornography are inappropriate in schools and if I were on a school board I would encourage restrictions on such matter.

[NYdemocrat089]

36. Only Ann Coulter books.

Just kidding...I'm against banning the freedom or speech through banning books.

[dorkulon]

39. I'm against coy posts that obviously stem from other threads

but contain no reference to those threads. At least link to the original thread, otherwise we have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Since you didn't, I'll be moving on to something more coherent and meaningful.

[BigDaddy44]

43. THANK YOU

Someone finally gets and makes my point for me. The answer we would all have to this question is "no, of course i oppose book banning". But life isn't that simple, is it?

[Richard Steele]

65. That bears ZERO relation to what Dorkulon said. You posts get more dishonest by the minute.

nm

[BigDaddy44]

67. Of course it does

He asks why I didn't reference the original thread. Why should I have had to? Shouldn't the question be able to stand alone? If you have to read the original thread in order to come up with an answer, then the answer isn't as simple as one should initially assume.

[LanternWaste]

40. It begs the question...

If a person may read the book in question on his own time, carry the book in question with him/her wherever they go, and further carry with them a tacit approval that the particular book is not by any legal defintion banned, it begs the question...

How precisely does a denial of display of that book in a non-private venue constitute banning?

[BigDaddy44]

44. Is "denial of display" banning?

Good question. I really don't know. And should "denial of display" be universal? In other words, can a book be in a library (on a shelf), but not on a desk within an office (all within the same building) when all of those areas are accessible by the same people?

[LanternWaste]

48. it seems that your self-made definition is neither absolute, nor valid

"I really don't know"

Then if you don't know, it seems that your self-made definition is neither absolute, nor valid.

If the fundamental definition is not valid, it seems that all discourse origination from that definition would be invalidated as well.

Maybe you could provide yourself with the legal definitions of both "Book Banning" and "censorship", compare and contrast them, infer which of the two valid definitions are relevant to the discussion, and provide us with that definition for the appropriate contrext of your original question.


If I said, "which color is your favorite-- but *I'm* defining all colors as yellow", it would appear to shut down the conversation before it begins, yes?

Or, we could use the actual definition of the word 'color' and let the discussion continue from there, yes?

I imagine that one seems rather silly, while the other doesn't...

[BigDaddy44]

50. You appear to be under the illusion that I think i know everything

I clearly don't. These are thorny issues. Some would define "book banning" as any attempt to censor someone's ability to have, read, or yes, display a book. Some wouldn't. There isn't a universal definition.

You haven't given me any opinions; so far you've only thrown rocks. If the subject matter bores or offends you, then I would suggest more productive uses for your time.

[LanternWaste]

62. How in can I give an opinion if the thesis question is a vague as it is?

How in can I give an opinion if the thesis question is a vague as it is?

Asking for valid explanations is not throwing rocks. So far from being offended, I am quite interested in the matter-- but wish to have the question clarified prior to voicing my own opinion.

If you can't produce a valid question, I suggest you yourself find ,more suitable uses for your time-- for example, reading the relevant (not universal-- but relevant (you can look that one up, too)) definitions of both censorship and banning.

I am very, very far from being under the illusion that you "know everything". But is it an illusion to expect someone to be aware of the relevant definitions and meanings of words used in the their own line of questioning?

Edit: punctuation

[Iggo]

41. Ban the bible. Ban it now.

There. Are you happy now, BigDaddy?

:P

[negativenihil]

47. 100% against. no exception. n/t

[Spike89]

49. Geez, it isn't the book being banned...

It is obnoxious behavior. Your premise that regulating book-related behavior is absurd...I'm all for banning the reading of the bible by automobile drivers while speeding through a school zone...so, therefore, I'm an anti-christian bigot or a book fascist?

[BigDaddy44]

52. I pose a question

Read through this thread. There are those who say they oppose it 100%. There are those who selectively oppose it. Some would argue they are opposed to ANY regulation of "book-related behavior".

You make quite a leap to suggest I believe anyone is a bigot or fascist. Its a question, and requests opinions. Nothing more.

[Iggo]

64. It's an easy leap....(n/t)

[GaYellowDawg]

54. That's a stupid definition of "banned"

When a book is banned, it can't be read by anyone at any time. Censorship is the restriction of books to certain places or people.

In some cases, censorship is just fine. Keeping a book of autopsies out of an elementary school classroom? No problem. Keeping a how-to manual for building a nuclear device out of the hands of the Taliban? No problem again. Keeping a Bible out of sight so that it doesn't impinge on the separation of church and state in a public science classroom? No problem.

You know, applying a hot-button term like "book banning" to an instance where it just doesn't apply and then asking a question about it is really weak.

[BigDaddy44]

60. Perhaps

But read the thread. Obviously there are those who disagree.

[elizfeelinggreat]

79. And he got what he wanted

his responses show that.




Weak is exactly right.

[timtom]

56. Against ALL book banning!

I am against censorship of any sort.

I will do my own self-censoring. I will choose to which information I will attend.

[hyphenate]

57. Banning is often encouraged

by publishers--they get more attention for their tomes that way.

I don't like banning anything--the pursuit of knowledge should be given free reign. If we censor, then we invite people to want it more.

Having said that, if there is a crime involved, I think publishers should self-censor on their own ethics. When they encourage a publishing that deals in a significant lower level of morality, the crime is rewarded. But I hope that knowledge is, on a larger scale than it already is, never forbidden. We know some people (religious fundamentalists) who want to ban knowledge as though it were a bad thing, and that must stop if we are ever going to evolve to the next level of consciousness. (And yes, pun intended)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Pornography in the classroom... are you for or against?

:shrug:

[Iggo]

68. I'm hot for teacher.

So, I guess I'm for it.

[Aristus]

66. My definition of the type of person I wouldn't cross the street to piss on is the kind of

person who thinks books should be banned, but not guns...

[warren pease]

70. I'm all in favor of book banning - providing it was mine being banned...

I'd love the free publicity and the soapbox it would provide. Banning would probably boost sales by several hundred percent, get me on talk shows and on the book signing circuit... possibly even get interesting women to buy me a coffee.

Hell yeah! Ban them all. I need the notoriety and the money that goes with it.


wp

[Initech]

71. Yes, the following books should be banned:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Q7HG7824L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SY7EF1YSL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5154SVWC1XL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

:evilgrin:

[noel711]

72. No books should be banned... just certain people!

Rememer Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" ???

It's coming....

I have catechetical kids in church class
(and we have some fabulous discussions)
and some are reading it and say: "What's the big deal?"
that's what I fear... "What's the big deal?"

When complacency sets in, all bets are off.

[Dr Fate]

73. Well, if you ban them, then everyone will want to read them!!!

One way of looking at it. ;)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

74. You're kidding, aren't you????

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

77. From what I gather, this has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Book Banning, but if a teacher can keep

a copy of the bible on his/hers desk? How disingenuous of you.

The teacher has every right to possess the bible, Lady Chatterley's Lover or The Book of Shadows as long as that teacher isn't proselytizing to students in a Public School. If the teacher's purpose is to intrigue (entrap) the students into his/hers beliefs by placing the bible on his/her desk, that should be unConstitutional and said teacher should place that bible in a private place..not banned.
That teacher can even teach comparative religion using said bible as an example, as long as that teacher isn't Preaching.

[mondo joe]

78. Against book banning for personal use, against using books to violate the separation of church

and state and against using books to violate the rights of students.

[elizfeelinggreat]

80. Bumping for BigDaddy44 to answer Bornaginhooligan

...

:)