PDA

View Full Version : Should books be banned from schools?


Reborn Outcast
04-14-2003, 06:24 PM
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?

XWING5
04-14-2003, 06:55 PM
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.....

Reborn Outcast
04-14-2003, 08:07 PM
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.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-14-2003, 08:08 PM
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.

Reborn Outcast
04-14-2003, 08:14 PM
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.

El Sitherino
04-14-2003, 09:14 PM
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.

Eldritch
04-14-2003, 09:16 PM
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.

TheHobGoblin
04-14-2003, 09:59 PM
It does go against the first amendmet. It should be only to schools that agree with it.

griff38
04-15-2003, 08:42 AM
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!

Kuuki
04-15-2003, 10:22 AM
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!

Bonedemon
04-15-2003, 10:43 AM
I really donīt 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 shouldnīt 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 itīs senses.

ShadowTemplar
04-15-2003, 03:17 PM
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?).

XWING5
04-15-2003, 04:49 PM
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.

ShadowTemplar
04-15-2003, 05:03 PM
We're not talking about the curriculum, but the school at large.

XWING5
04-15-2003, 05:37 PM
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.

ShadowTemplar
04-15-2003, 05:40 PM
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.

XWING5
04-15-2003, 05:45 PM
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. :(

ShadowTemplar
04-15-2003, 06:06 PM
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.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-25-2003, 11:53 PM
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.

munik
04-26-2003, 12:17 AM
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.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-26-2003, 06:56 PM
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.

munik
04-27-2003, 12:58 AM
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.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-27-2003, 01:58 PM
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.

ET Warrior
04-27-2003, 02:07 PM
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.

C'jais
04-27-2003, 02:10 PM
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.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-27-2003, 03:53 PM
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.

munik
04-28-2003, 05:27 AM
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.

Homuncul
04-28-2003, 06:06 AM
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.

ShadowTemplar
04-28-2003, 09:01 AM
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.

ET Warrior
04-29-2003, 02:52 AM
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)

ckcsaber
04-30-2003, 06:47 PM
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.

CagedCrado
04-30-2003, 09:28 PM
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.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-30-2003, 10:50 PM
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.

ET Warrior
05-01-2003, 02:36 AM
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.

Datheus
05-05-2003, 05:59 AM
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.

ShadowTemplar
05-05-2003, 09:08 AM
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.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-05-2003, 08:47 PM
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).

ET Warrior
05-06-2003, 02:12 AM
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.

Datheus
05-06-2003, 03:59 AM
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

Homuncul
05-06-2003, 07:03 AM
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

Dagobahn Eagle
05-06-2003, 07:54 PM
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:.

ET Warrior
05-06-2003, 10:29 PM
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

Homuncul
05-07-2003, 08:07 AM
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.

C'jais
05-07-2003, 11:20 AM
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 FŁhrer?

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.

ET Warrior
05-08-2003, 01:36 AM
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.

Homuncul
05-08-2003, 04:26 AM
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.

ShadowTemplar
05-08-2003, 07:51 AM
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.

Cosmos Jack
05-08-2003, 10:11 AM
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 parentsí 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 ďTo Kill a MockingbirdĒ it was probably banned because of Political Correctness not because it had racism in the story. Some kidís mother probably read the book with them and took offence. They complained or threaten a law suit or whatever I donít know thatís 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.

Didnít Hitler bann alot of books because of their nonfascist ideas or maybe he just didnít like competition.:rolleyes:

ShadowTemplar
05-08-2003, 10:43 AM
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 parentsí 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
Didnít Hitler bann alot of books because of their nonfascist ideas or maybe he just didnít like competition.:rolleyes:

Yeah, he did.

Cosmos Jack
05-08-2003, 11:36 AM
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.

ShadowTemplar
05-08-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
I think I am the only person to ever read the bible and get pissedoff.

Presumably because most other like-minded people get sick and tired of it less than half-way through.

C'jais
05-08-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Homuncul
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 did not. Anyone can see how virtually every society arrives at the same basic morals, with or without religion.

It proved futile and furthermore distructive.

So did Christianity. Your point?

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.

Yes, but we have to draw a line somewhere. I think we should make everything public in this regard. Keeping the "Anarchists cook-book" etc banned is okay, as this is gun control (like ST pointed out). Banning "Mein Kampf" is political control.

C'jais
05-08-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Homuncul
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.

Again, the public ought to draw the line - if they don't like it, they don't buy it. We have to courses of action:

1) Let censors decide which books and which political parties are banned. The problem here is that this will udavoidably lead to conflicting opinions - if Mein Kampf is banned, why isn't Das Kapital banned as well? If a book promoting rape is banned, which isn't the Holy Bible banned as well? All promote a destructive change in society which will gnaw at the fundament of Democracy. Banning MK but not Das Kapital only shows that the censors have no idea what they're doing - Das Kapital promotes an equally dangerous society, one which will replace democracy and remove the government. It shows that the censors are biased towards Communism, and inflicts this bias upon the democratic society which they are supposed to protect and uphold (all the while promoting, through censorship, an anti-democratic government). Is this fair?

2) On the other hand, we can let every political text be open for public use and abuse. There is no bias here, and democracy is upheld, but there's the danger that some people might be swayed and persuaded by these texts to commit crimes and try to destroy democracy.

It is this very self-sacrificing idea behind democracy which must be protected in my eyes. Choice No. 1 has a huge democratic loss in the form of free speech, but it has the gain of upholding the current government. It relies upon faith - the faith that through tight censorship, peace in the system is attained. I am of the belief that a peace through this can never be attained, and that such a government will never find the strengh to support itself, and will gradually spin itself into a censoring hole from which it cannot recover and will ultimately breed terror groups.

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.

Who gave them that right, and on which basis? Would society crumble if they weren't there?

Hitler was ill. He had mixed conceptions of good and bad. You should look at his childhood.

That's not relevant.

We learn it's factual goals and we're explained why it doesn't work.

So why not explain that Communism can't work either? Or a Church? Again, unneeded, biased censorship.

Or you mean that I can't imagine anarchy implicitly in all of it's forms because I lived only in republic?

I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-08-2003, 08:02 PM
C' Jais: I didn't say Communism was good, did I?

Okay, here's the deal (what I meant to say):
Most christians practice chrisitanity in a way that doesn't really hurt people, apart from being a different view (ie. believing in God, not Allah), which is not offensive. A few think the Bible is a facist handbook.

All nazis are anti-semitistic, racists, and so on.

That's the difference.

Body count... The christians killed that many people, yes, but that was houndreds of years ago. It's like saying Norwegians are barbarians today because we were Vikings 1000 years ago, I think.

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.
I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no.

I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.
Um.. or maybe he's been to churches and seen them work? IMO, all the sermons I've been to in Christian Norway "worked". What's your definition of a "working" church anyway (just curious)? Anarchy deserves a whole thread of itself, IMO.

And about the rape book in my example, haven't you considered that it's not that "we think rape is wrong", but that it might increase the amount of rapes in the country, give the rapers a "leader"/"hero", and glorify rapes to the rapists?

If you value Democracy over as low a rate of sexual abuse as possible, well, tell that to girl who've been raped. "Yeah, the rape rate went up 10% but we're a democracy, so it's okay?"

This brings me to an interesting point. Yes, we value democracy, but don't we also value safety, security, acceptance, etc.?

Let's say we ban My Struggle and Nazism. You were right, and the exact same people remain anti-minority groups, but under new names. Pointless? No. Because although their opinions are the same still, their message will be different when they can't publicly call themselves "nazis", recognizing Adolf Hitler as their leader. Their message will be different when they can't use swastikas as symbols. You can say the exact same things about Jews (unless anti-semitism is banned too, which I'd like to see:)), but you'll be "just another racist", not a "member of the faction that killed 6 000 000 Jews". It might not be different to you, but I ensure you it'll be a big difference to those hit by their remarks (such as me).

Also about rape: You may value democracy, but if 5000 more girls are raped in the States annualy because of Molesting for Dummies, what's wrong with banning it?

This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory.

Cosmos Jack
05-08-2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no. Hmm so youíre against free speech?

Freedom of speech protects the Fascists, the KKK, and Christians alike. While we are at it lets ban Maxiam it portrays a negative image of women and the Bible it promotes beleving in a god or your going to hell. Lets just ban books all together, because everybody might not like what they have to say.

The simple fact here is. If I want to be a Christian, a Nazi, a Communist, or a Capitalist. I have that right in the USA. Itís on paper itís the law. If I want to read about it, or talk about it, or demonstrate about it. As long as Iím not hurting anyone or causing trouble I am free to do so. If you donít want to read the ďMein KampfĒ guess what you have the freedom not to read it also. Nobody in this country has the right to tell me what I can and can not read. Itís the law. If this country starts banning books itís on its way to fascism in a hand basket. Might as well get out your swastika.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory. Heil Dagobahn Eagle. I ve ian Berliner ? <--- That was just wrong of me:o

Dagobahn Eagle
05-08-2003, 09:56 PM
That was just wrong of me

1. Weird.
2. Du bist nicht eine Berliner.
3. Du mussen Deutsch lehren:D, but your spelling is already addressed.
4. Pointless. Banning nazi books doesn't make me a nazi :), or what? Maybe I'm in favour of dictatorship (in your opinion), but you do realize it's not very nazistic to ban nazist ideas, right? Because how would I do it? First I'd have to ban my own speech, and then I'd be stuck!

Lets just ban books all together, because everybody might not like what they have to say.
I don't think that's a good idea.

Cosmos Jack
05-08-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
3. Du mussen Deutsch lehren:D, but your spelling is already addressed. That's how it showed up on Yahoo search. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
4. Pointless. Banning nazi books doesn't make me a nazi :), or what? Maybe I'm in favour of dictatorship (in your opinion), but you do realize it's not very nazistic to ban nazist ideas, right? Because how would I do it? First I'd have to ban my own speech, and then I'd be stuck! Not necessarily you can be a fascist without being a Nazi. They donít have exclusive rights over fascism.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I don't think that's a good idea. :rolleyes: Neither is banning a book, because you don't agree with it.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-08-2003, 10:52 PM
That's how it showed up on Yahoo search.
LOL:D!
It's "Ich bin ein(e?) Berliner."

Facist, nazi, or just pro-censorship. Point is, banning it doesn't make me a facist OR a nazi. Like a facist, maybe, but not necessarily an actual facist.

Neither is banning a book, because you don't agree with it.
Well, it's not that I don't agree with it, otherwise I'd have banned every Republican book out there:). Problem is, keeping it legal to society destructive to society more than not banning it is constructive. In my opinion:).

Cosmos Jack
05-09-2003, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Well, it's not that I don't agree with it, otherwise I'd have banned every Republican book out there:). Problem is, keeping it legal to society destructive to society more than not banning it is constructive. In my opinion:). Like I said before... Regardless of being negative or positive it has equal protection under freedom of speech that's just the way it is. If you ban it for whatever reason you are denying that freedom. People have the freedom to read and think hate field things if they want.

During the rise of Christianity the early christens ram sacked a Library in Alexandria. At the time a center of knowledge. They did that, because they considered the science and reading there to be pagan and against Christianity. At the time paganism was viewed as bad fascism is now. The problem here is if they had not done that The Dark Ages may never have happened. We could have been on the moon a few hundred years ago.

It was a Nazi scientist that built the rocket that took the US to the moon. In fact allot of advancements came from the Nazis, however; bad they may have been there is allot of things we wouldnít have right now if WWII had never have happened. We might not even have Computers.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-09-2003, 01:12 AM
Many good points there, CJ.

I'm familiar with the 1st Amendment, but I believe the question of the thread is "but should it stay that way"?

It was a Nazi scientist that built the rocket that took the US to the moon. In fact allot of advancements came from the Nazis, however; bad they may have been there is allot of things we wouldnít have right now if WWII had never have happened. We might not even have Computers.
I get your point.
However, we can't know that the USA wouldn't have built rockets if Nazi Germany didn't. True, war is a good reason for promoting research, but let's say that the USSR built the first long-range rockets, beating the USA, and even ended up landing on the moon ("a small step for me, a huge step for the mothers' land":p), just to beat the States.

True, computers are also inventions that we can "thank" WW II for, but again, we don't know how things would have been different without WW II.

This is an argument I haven't used before, just as a side note.

Let's say you run from school one day, late for the bus. As you run into this road intersection, wham, a bicyclist hits you and runs over your arm, breaking it, causing you to be unable to play for your team, which affects the game because they have to insert someone else who's not doing too well in center-position.

So let's say you turn back time. This time, too, you run away from school, but stop before the intersection. You see the bike pass you harmlessy and move on into the intersection







where the bus hits it, killing the biker. You, on the other hand, moves on to play for your team, which wins the cup.

IMO, you winning the cup = computers and moon landing, while the dead biker = the deaths and horrors of WW II. If I were you, I'd not turn back time in that scenario.

I know that doesn't refute your argument, but I find it interesting.

Cosmos Jack
05-09-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm familiar with the 1st Amendment, but I believe the question of the thread is "but should it stay that way"? I think I said it should. If in one way or another. ;)
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I get your point. However, we can't know that the USA wouldn't have built rockets if Nazi Germany didn't. True, war is a good reason for promoting research, but let's say that the USSR built the first long-range rockets, beating the USA, and even ended up landing on the moon ("a small step for me, a huge step for the mothers' land":p), just to beat the States.
Well the Nazis built the 1st working usable rockets. The USA and the USSR bothe used Nazi scientist and technology to build them. The Russians did launch the 1st long ranch rocket into space putting Sputnik in orbit beating the US, however; they started the space race and the US one out in the long run.

So the Russians did build a long ranch rocket first and the US still beat them to the moon... So I'm sorry but the bottom of your statement is a little off.

So as for WWII being responsible for many of the nifty things we have today. Whether they would have come about if not for war is unknown. Space travel was believed to be utterly impossible since combustion could not occur in space. If someone had not invested the time in making a working rocket even if for war nobody may have been able to.

Necessity is the mother of invitation. Nobody is going to break their necks making something happen that isnít needed, and war is the ultimate needy thing. All kinds of things come from war and the need to do it better than your opponent. We wouldnít have the ballpoint pin if not for war. It was invented for early fighter pilots.

C'jais
05-09-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
C' Jais: I didn't say Communism was good, did I?

So you'd want to ban Das Kapital as well?

And every even remotely extremist right-wing political propaganda poster?

Most christians practice chrisitanity in a way that doesn't really hurt people, apart from being a different view (ie. believing in God, not Allah), which is not offensive. A few think the Bible is a facist handbook.

I'm not talking about Christians as individuals.

I'm talking about the Church as an institution. An institution which discriminates, feed on its members, twists their minds and stands like a roadblock in the way of science. It's dangerous, though very few are willing to see it. As ST said, it's accepted because we're used to it, just like Communism is through some strange turn of fate more accepted than Nazism even though it's done far more evil. Because many Russians grew up with Stalin during their entire lives, he's a "great leader", compared to Hitler who's a fascist monster. I was recently in Spain, and I talked to an old lady - she liked Franco's dictatorship far better than the current democracy "because back in the day, the police would take care of all the thugs on the street". Weird, but possible only because people had become used to it.

All around the world, we scoff at the Moonies for "brainwashing" people and instilling a dangerous sense of righteousness into people. Yet most are not aware that their Church next door does the exact same thing. It's done far worse, but as its been forced into submission it no longer has the influence it desperately wants.

All nazis are anti-semitistic, racists, and so on.

All churches will install a theocracy with its own moral doctrines had they the power.

Body count... The christians killed that many people, yes, but that was houndreds of years ago.

Even today, churches are making people die and kill for them, disrupting education and destroying cultures.

I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no.

You're obviously still afraid of Nazis, even though they're not interested in harming you specifically. One doesn't exclude the other.


Um.. or maybe he's been to churches and seen them work? IMO, all the sermons I've been to in Christian Norway "worked". What's your definition of a "working" church anyway (just curious)?

I haven't seen any "working" churches, that's the entire problem. You haven't seen any "working" dictatorships, have you?

Anarchy deserves a whole thread of itself, IMO.

Yes, but you'd still want to ban it if it was up to you, no?

And about the rape book in my example, haven't you considered that it's not that "we think rape is wrong", but that it might increase the amount of rapes in the country, give the rapers a "leader"/"hero", and glorify rapes to the rapists?

If you value Democracy over as low a rate of sexual abuse as possible, well, tell that to girl who've been raped. "Yeah, the rape rate went up 10% but we're a democracy, so it's okay?"

The point is a good one, though very academic in my eyes.

Who would want to publish such a book? Do you think any publisher would foresee it selling very well?

Besides, such a hero figure have already been created. Look at the internet - I'm willing to bet that a lot of rape-glamourizing porn and fan fiction has been made already. Anyone can view this. But do you see an increased rate of rape? No, the people commiting rape are not looking for a hero figure, and even if the decidedly sick people were, it wouldn't matter- they'd be sick enough to have raped any way.

Again, the internet is used for spreading political propaganda, but we don't see an increase in Nazi supporters, do we? No, because if you're looking for this in the first place, you're sick enough already. It won't convince normal people in the slightest, just like a book glorifying rape wouldn't convince every male to go out and rape women.

The rape example will never be realized - there'd have to be something inherently wrong with all peope if they're willing to throw their morals on the fire just for a book they'll never read anyway.

Let's say we ban My Struggle and Nazism. You were right, and the exact same people remain anti-minority groups, but under new names. Pointless? No. Because although their opinions are the same still, their message will be different when they can't publicly call themselves "nazis", recognizing Adolf Hitler as their leader. Their message will be different when they can't use swastikas as symbols.

Eagle, you know that isn't going to happen. You can't just call yourself a "Flazi" and expect to be ignored if your opinions are the same as Nazistic ones. You want to ban extreme political views - you can't just ban a group of people and expect to be rid of the problem. Everyone will still be offended by these new "Flazis", and you'd have to ban them as well. Until you banned the wrong views, you wouldn't be rid of the problem.

You can say the exact same things about Jews (unless anti-semitism is banned too, which I'd like to see:)), but you'll be "just another racist", not a "member of the faction that killed 6 000 000 Jews". It might not be different to you, but I ensure you it'll be a big difference to those hit by their remarks (such as me).

Eagle, what you're doing is erasing history. As long as the name "Nazi" doesn't exist anywhere, you're satisfied? Once the new group publishes a book with the exact same ideas that Hitler had, are you saying you wouldn't ban it?

Also about rape: You may value democracy, but if 5000 more girls are raped in the States annualy because of Molesting for Dummies, what's wrong with banning it?

Again, that would never happen. The political examples are valid, but the rape one is way out there.

And political control should never happen.

This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory.

It's not a domino effect.

Where do you draw the line? Who decides which movie promotes, and which one doesn't? Who decides if American History X promotes Nazism? You'd have to constantly ban every new extremist political stance - it's not a domino effect, it's just something that'd naturally occur every once in a while as the wrong people are always looking for the right excuse.

Cosmos Jack
05-09-2003, 01:24 PM
I was eating tortilla chips with spicy salsa just now and was thinking about how allot of people I know don't like hot & spicy salsa. :p

It has an odd parallel to free speech. Freedom to eat what you want is like the freedom to say and read what you want. Say you're a Republican you might like nice fancy restaurants or you're a Democrat you can't afford to much so you eat fast food allot.

I might have a taste for them capitalistic McDonalds guys or choose to go Commi Burger King. Maybe I'm just down right Fascist and go to Taco Bell.

The point here is you have the freedom to eat what you want. If you don't like what McDonalds has to eat you don't have to go there. If you don't like any of the choices you have the freedom to fix for yourself what you want to eat, and nobody has to like it but you.

If I right a book about the pros of eugenics and planned parent hood it might not be to popular with all the christen crowd. They don't have to read it neither does anyone else, however; I have the right to think that I even have the right to speak out about it. If my ideas are truly viewed as wrong I'm not going to get much support.

Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Whatís right is what the majority thinks is right same for what's wrong. All the people in history who have done bad things only did bad things; because they didn't win and go on to right the history. Christians for example think they have saved the world and if you read the more popular crap you would think they did. There are millions of dead Native Americans who would argue that.

Homuncul
05-12-2003, 04:53 AM
ShadowTemplar:
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.

If you're not agreed with these censorers become one yourself and change the damn thing.
Majority is a superstition. Those not very clever people who are propagaded with doing rape might find suitable to rape not because of their mind desease (they are not with high probability to become rapists) but because of their inability to follow their own decisions resulting in the persuadence of ideals of some horrible book (ocassionally). These things happen with many people. Some are just not as smart as you. Face it.

Objection: Relevance?

I don't know maybe you're too much sticking with the words. Understand, many of us can follow with great accuracy, logically, imaginatively the illness of Hitler with high relevance concerning of his acts in history. Actually concerning to the point where relevance is defined by our assumptions. I can follow the facts about Hitler as any shrink can do to say that Hitler was an ill person (but very capable nonetheless I think). If you can't postulate that facts (measurement) are subjective too (highly inaccurate) then I can say for fact (with very high probability and "high level" relevance) that Hitler was ill and had mixed conception of good and bad (ill conceptions) resulting in WWII (missing purposely many leads) which of course is subjective but to which we attribute "high" relevancy which is logical I think.
And the WAY those ideas are propogaded in Mein Kampf should be banned and his illness is one reason for that.

Or these goals are also subjective because author of a school book was a human?
Yes

Again we must consider not the facts that these observations of history were made by men so that facts are subjective but that facts are made accurately in time and place and that the conclusions from them were made with logic and high accuracy. If you don't trust these things then whom to trust. Or is it again not relevant? Or we can trust no one?. Something paranoid I think

Yes. But that's not relevant either.

It is relevant. We can make more accurate assumptions with all possibilities concerning. And now through historians studying it we can tell with great accuracy that anarchy won't work. Of course it is all probability. But what is not then?

C'Jais:
It did not. Anyone can see how virtually every society arrives at the same basic morals, with or without religion.

Ok. Let's look at the "world religion". First every worldview comes out of a myth. Later the society forms it's worldview taken from the conjunction of myths that circulate in their group. Then religion shows up which is the next step of a society evolution. It's adopted by the society to fit the norms (Christianity when comes to some other culture) or necceseties to create other norms(look at Buddhism and Brachmanism). Christianity is young, it's made to be all uniting world religion, a bit weaker is islam, then judaism, then buddhism then others. Then I say that the Christianity unites any of these except islam perhaps. And these basic ideas that circulate in the society are coming from the same myths Christianity inhereted and furthermore we no longer even use these myths to defy our worldview but the Bible which is propagaded to us without intent by our parents or with one by the church.
It comes to the same look worldwide because of Christianity's "universality". so as Christianity prevails I may say that nowadays these norms come from it. Of course I forgot about the opposotion of christianity (that Shadow mentioned) which played its role but it doesn't change a thing.

So did Christianity. Your point?

Sure but without the amendment on it's "universality" which we can't by any mean attribute to nazism.

Yes, but we have to draw a line somewhere. I think we should make everything public in this regard. Keeping the "Anarchists cook-book" etc banned is okay, as this is gun control (like ST pointed out). Banning "Mein Kampf" is political control.

I agree. I meant that if you want you have a freedom to become a censorer for such books, prove yourself right to those censorers that oppose you and restrict anything you want. You can't eliminate political control, you can only make it smoother. It all depends on you. If you really try you can do it.
But there's another thing. This political control is not opposing us, cauze we're the ones who can read Mein Kampf without problems resulted in a change of our worldview and further participation in a world nazistic revolution. We have a base (our primary upbringing,history knowledge, ability to make logical conclusions and will to make them) as I already mentioned earlier that not all people have. Furhermore the majority do not. That's why I'm for banning Mein Kampf.

1) Let censors decide which books and which political parties are banned. The problem here is that this will udavoidably lead to conflicting opinions - if Mein Kampf is banned, why isn't Das Kapital banned as well? If a book promoting rape is banned, which isn't the Holy Bible banned as well? All promote a destructive change in society which will gnaw at the fundament of Democracy. Banning MK but not Das Kapital only shows that the censors have no idea what they're doing - Das Kapital promotes an equally dangerous society, one which will replace democracy and remove the government. It shows that the censors are biased towards Communism, and inflicts this bias upon the democratic society which they are supposed to protect and uphold (all the while promoting, through censorship, an anti-democratic government). Is this fair?

But I think you're too pessimistic. I can only refer to my early sinusoidal view on such tendencies. It's economy, nothing must stand in place, it must always move. And this movement leads to these points of max (people's extreme) and min (their indifference). But this is micro level. On macro level you will see an autonymously balancing machine which'd formed recently that gives no opportunity to these tendencies to prevail completely. It's mine and not soly mine view

2) On the other hand, we can let every political text be open for public use and abuse. There is no bias here, and democracy is upheld, but there's the danger that some people might be swayed and persuaded by these texts to commit crimes and try to destroy democracy.

Right. So you see these are the same two points of max and min (resulting in destruction of democracy) but the balance is in the middle.

It is this very self-sacrificing idea behind democracy which must be protected in my eyes. Choice No. 1 has a huge democratic loss in the form of free speech, but it has the gain of upholding the current government. It relies upon faith - the faith that through tight censorship, peace in the system is attained. I am of the belief that a peace through this can never be attained, and that such a government will never find the strengh to support itself, and will gradually spin itself into a censoring hole from which it cannot recover and will ultimately breed terror groups.

Again maybe you're too pessimistic about it. With great probability You will never see in your lifetime anything like nazist doctrine. I hold to that.

Who gave them that right, and on which basis? Would society crumble if they weren't there?

Sorry, but it's political control of the state you live in. You live in it, it gives you rights it takes something instead. But you're nothing without it. Don't mean any offense

So why not explain that Communism can't work either? Or a Church? Again, unneeded, biased censorship.

Some are just incapable of listening as some fighting muslim terrorists (perfect example). And in the case of Church - unfortunately it is working.

I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.

No, I don't believe anarchy can't work because I CAN'T read a book where anarchy is glamorized and it's "good" things are explained imlicitly and maybe even prevail over the bad ones. But because I've been introduced to all of it's goals and at present moment I can decide for myself whether Anarchy is right or wrong not thinking about my historian professor saying it's wrong but relying on my conclusions about it. Maybe my conclusions miss some data for calculation than I make a terrible mistake. But I think that our BELIEF in something is a justification for that missing data. Although I try not to miss it happens. But it could also happen that I was still right ocassionally not concerning the missing data.

That's actually why I'm hear I'm looking for something that'd been missed and if someone would convince me of it I would only appreciate it.

P.S. My mouth is numb I can speak no more or I lose my myself.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-13-2003, 01:21 AM
Whoa, long post:)

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.
Not so.
Well, here's what an elementary school child knows:
MK is Hitler's book.

Middle/High school:
MK is the book that Hitler wrote when he was jailed for nazism before WW II.

College:
Probably have it summarized for them.

No, I don't believe anarchy can't work because I CAN'T read a book where anarchy is glamorized and it's "good" things are explained imlicitly and maybe even prevail over the bad ones. But because I've been introduced to all of it's goals and at present moment I can decide for myself whether Anarchy is right or wrong not thinking about my historian professor saying it's wrong but relying on my conclusions about it. Maybe my conclusions miss some data for calculation than I make a terrible mistake. But I think that our BELIEF in something is a justification for that missing data. Although I try not to miss it happens. But it could also happen that I was still right ocassionally not concerning the missing data.
Good point. Even if books are banned, we can still educate people on the good and bad sides of the subject, can't we?

A school can disallow promotion of bullying and still teach about bullying. You're right, letting kids bully would be the best way to teach them about it, but face it: Which one is the most constructive? Which one leaves the most people feeling bad and hurt?

And about burning books.. well, look at vires scientists "make extinct". When they can't, they don't make them extinct, they preserve a few of them in laboratories, where they can keep studying them.

I don't think in any way that we should eradicate all copies of My Struggle and completely forget what the Red-White-Black Nazi flag looked like. Include them in museums, history books, and otherwise, but ban possession of them and promotion of them (except to gain a somewhat more biased view of them ). However, it shouldn't be promoted.

If a teacher stood up and said: "Okay, today, to get a full view on bullying, I'll tell you why you should bully people", and then went on to ignore all bullies, would you like that? No. Why? Because you know bullying is bad. Same with banning books like the Protocols of Zion (Jewish propaganda) and My Struggle (Hitler's book).

If you don't agree with the censoring the current party is doing, let that party or another party know it will get your votes by allowing the work. Let it be up to the ruling party to carry out the wishes of the people. Democracy.

You can't just call yourself a "Flazi" and expect to be ignored if your opinions are the same as Nazistic ones. You want to ban extreme political views - you can't just ban a group of people and expect to be rid of the problem. Everyone will still be offended by these new "Flazis", and you'd have to ban them as well. Until you banned the wrong views, you wouldn't be rid of the problem.Okay, I'm wrong. So, are you for banning anti-semitism then?

I was eating tortilla chips with spicy salsa just now and was thinking about how allot of people I know don't like hot & spicy salsa.

It has an odd parallel to free speech. Freedom to eat what you want is like the freedom to say and read what you want. Say you're a Republican you might like nice fancy restaurants or you're a Democrat you can't afford to much so you eat fast food a lot.
It goes a bit deeper than that. We want certain books prohibited because we think they are harmful, not because we just dislike them.

If I suspected your chips were salmonnela-infested, I'd want you not to eat it. If it was safe, heck, I've heard about eating places where they serve whale meat, for crying out loud! But unless it's harmful, and even if they're harmful, it's their right to eat it. Still, if the whale meat gave you diarrhead, I'd speak up against eating it.

Cosmos Jack
05-13-2003, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It goes a bit deeper than that. We want certain books prohibited because we think they are harmful, not because we just dislike them. No it really doesn't go deeper there guy. That's pretty much rock bottom. It's also like people wanting to ban firearms. If you ban guns to people that can legally own them at the moment. It's not going to get rid of all the illegally ones. There are also a lot of people that know how to make guns. So all you do is create a underworld market for such things. Wait a minute there already is one. If I want to kill someone do you really think I'm going to get a gun registered to me. Nah I'm going to Joe Shmowe he has a tone of them from where he buys and trades them on the street.

Ban all the books you want. Little "Albert" when he grows up is going to be "Albert Heckler" and be the 1st Fascist Dictator of the U.S.A. Them dam Flazies. Not only did he not ever read about fascism. He came up with it out of his little head. No matter how many negative ideas you ban there will always be someone in the future that will come up with that same idea. Maybe even add a new twist and make it worse.

Telling someone they can't think or read a certain thing is like telling a guy with gun to your head to not pull the trigger. It's up to them what they do with what they think. Not all people are going to pull the trigger, and you can't do a dam thing about the one that does.

Ban books on how to rape it doesn't take a guy with a 200+ IQ to figure out how to rape a woman. It's not like you have to read a book. I seriously doubt most rapist read a book on how to rape.

Ban books on how to make bombs. Joe Smuckitly a cross the street was a combat engineer in Vietnam. He made bombs all the time. He is going to teach little "Albert" how to make them, because the government went against the right to free speech, and it needs to be overthrown. Go ahead ban books that teach about fascism. Joe Smuckitly hates Christians, because they run the country. He thinks they tell people what to say and think. Joe wants little "Albert" to grow up and wipe them out. Gee though where did they get all these nasty ideas if they couldn't read about them.

Not only are you going to have to ban books, but you better ban the e-net as well. Someday there won't be books. While you're at it figure out how to control what people think, because at the heart of everything here. It's what people come up with in their own heads that does the damage not what they read. Someone came up with the KKK, and someone came up with Fascism. Before there were books about it there was a guy with an Idea. I wouldn't doubt if some day someone is going to make the Nazis look like fairy god mothers. Banning books on how to be that way isn't going to stop hate field "Albert" from growing up to put that illegal off the street gun to your head. After he blew up the 7/11 down the road with the bombs Joe taught him how to make.

C'jais
05-13-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Homuncul
Those not very clever people who are propagaded with doing rape might find suitable to rape not because of their mind desease (they are not with high probability to become rapists) but because of their inability to follow their own decisions resulting in the persuadence of ideals of some horrible book (ocassionally). These things happen with many people. Some are just not as smart as you. Face it.

Are you implying that if some loonie managed to get his rape-glorifying book published, every loonie with access to a shady bookstore would seek it out and start raising the rape statistics? That sounds very pessimistic to me.

With all respect, I think the point is an academic one. When someone does write such a book, every person who's mentally disabled enough to actually go out and rape someone because of it, will have plenty of access to equally "dangerous" works on the internet. You can't stop it, I feel.

Furthermore, I infer that you want to ban murder-promoting books and internet sites as well. Do you have any idea how hard that's going to be? It's nigh impossible, and a quick look at the latest blockbusters will reveal plenty of movies with stumped, murdering people in the lead roles.

If you can't postulate that facts (measurement) are subjective too (highly inaccurate) then I can say for fact (with very high probability and "high level" relevance) that Hitler was ill and had mixed conception of good and bad (ill conceptions) resulting in WWII (missing purposely many leads) which of course is subjective but to which we attribute "high" relevancy which is logical I think.
And the WAY those ideas are propogaded in Mein Kampf should be banned and his illness is one reason for that.

Hitler was a crazy man, no doubt there, but you can't ban books because of the mental condition of the author alone. His views are widely regarded as skewed, but because you and I don't agree with them doesn't mean they're ripe for banning. It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis.


And now through historians studying it we can tell with great accuracy that anarchy won't work. Of course it is all probability. But what is not then?

Anarchy has never been in a position to prove itself as a working political system. Why do you want to ban it?

Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.

And how about theocracies and dictatorships - in the light of Democracy, they don't work and are furthermore dangerous to the state. You want to ban litterature, movies and computergames that promote these? Good luck, again.

It comes to the same look worldwide because of Christianity's "universality". so as Christianity prevails I may say that nowadays these norms come from it. Of course I forgot about the opposotion of christianity (that Shadow mentioned) which played its role but it doesn't change a thing.

Sure but without the amendment on it's "universality" which we can't by any mean attribute to nazism.

Theocracies do not work, history has proved this on many occasions.

Christianity is no more universal than other religions, and the fact that every time it has tried to be that, it's broken apart (remember the dark ages, and the seperation of church and state?).

We have a base (our primary upbringing,history knowledge, ability to make logical conclusions and will to make them) as I already mentioned earlier that not all people have. Furhermore the majority do not.

You don't think most people are quite able to see for themselves that Nazism doesn't quite work, and that glorifying rape is going to get them behind bars pretty damn fast? I think they do.

I think it's only crackpots who can't make those conclusions, and they'd wind up doing school shootings from playing Doom anyway ;)

In other words, I think you're gearing your book banning towards individuals so stumped they'd be placed on asylums at the age of 4.

On the other hand, the masses are easily swayed in times of conflict. Yet when such a troublesome time comes (Germany in the 20's etc), people are willing to look anywhere for guidance and blame to place. Anyone can do this, and in this regard, a church state is just as likely to form if that isn't banned as well.

Again maybe you're too pessimistic about it. With great probability You will never see in your lifetime anything like nazist doctrine. I hold to that.

What do you mean? No, I don't think I'll ever see a Nazist rule, and even though it could still happen, I honestly don't think a state which supresses it is going to deter it.

Some are just incapable of listening as some fighting muslim terrorists (perfect example). And in the case of Church - unfortunately it is working.

By the same line of thought, Saddam's police state worked as well. For many years. So many years in fact, that people had gotten used to it and didn't see a point in fighting it.

P.S. My mouth is numb I can speak no more or I lose my myself.

:D

BrodieCadden
05-14-2003, 12:22 AM
How has this turned into another debate about Christianity? I am all for discussions, but this has been done to death and it has little to do with the topic. Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed (not by all, SkinWalker and C'Jais are respectable fellows, who both just happens not to be Christian, and I respect them and I hope they respect me) whenever a religious topic is brought up? There are other world religions ya'know and it is hard for me to keep on defending it (it takes alot of typing :D ) Can we please lay off? Pick another religion to be the sponge for your, generally, ignorant complaining. Better yet, make an anti-Christianity topic, where y'all can all go and complain.

It is hard for me to enjoy myself here when every thread I go into turns into a ridicule of Christianity. This forum is for "intelligent discussion", I would think staying on topic is part and parcel of that statement, eh chaps? Thankyou :)

" It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis."

I think that keeping Mein Kampf on the market may actually dissuade people from becoming Nazis. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was a maniac, I lost count of how many times he said "racial poisoning" and how Germany would become "Lords of the Earth". That sort of rhetoric would certainly stop me becoming a Nazi.

munik
05-14-2003, 01:39 AM
It's because christianity permeates many facets in our lives. I don't think this discussion is turning into anything religious. You can have a discussion that mentions religion without being a religious discussion.

Cosmos Jack
05-14-2003, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
How has this turned into another debate about Christianity? It didn't get turned into another debate. It was used as a wiping boy, and that's where it belongs.
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed Well there is so much to bring up and ridicule about it.Originally posted by BrodieCadden
There are other world religions ya'know and it is hard for me to keep on defending it (it takes alot of typing :D ) Yes there are many other wonderfully ignorant religions out there, but christianity has a special place in my heart. As for all your typing don't waste your time.
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
Can we please lay off? Pick another religion to be the sponge for your, generally, ignorant complaining. Ignorance is bliss and that's why christians are so happy.

:snear:I don't know if that was borderline flaming, but on a scale of 1 to 10%. I was holding back 100%

BrodieCadden
05-14-2003, 02:19 AM
Cosmos Jack the insults you are throwing around are serious grounds for a banning. Watch yourself, you are coming off as seriously bigoted.

ET Warrior
05-14-2003, 02:37 AM
Dont mind cosmos jack, he just likes to irk people ;)

Cosmos Jack
05-14-2003, 02:47 AM
From what I can tell you asked questions and I gave you answers. I'm sorry if you didn't like them, but they were true and straight from the heart. They were also as soft as I can make them.

I'm sorry if you're a christian, but that is your problem. If you think what I said was bad. Than you have no true idea of what I really feel on the subject. As for being a bigot. If I'm a bigot than I'm not alone in a world full of christians.

If you really have anything else like above to say to me PM me and keep it off the boards.

Bigot you say.......... Only "by God"

Originally posted by ET Warrior
Dont mind cosmos jack, he just likes to irk people ;) Gee Wiz:rolleyes:

Dagobahn Eagle
05-14-2003, 10:36 PM
Are you implying that if some loonie managed to get his rape-glorifying book published, every loonie with access to a shady bookstore would seek it out and start raising the rape statistics? That sounds very pessimistic to me.
It's about culture, I think, C' Jais. Maybe it doesn't bring it up too much, but it certainly doesn't lower them.

Look, in the USA, some prisons' webpages publish every little detail on their prisoners on the Web, especially those on Death Row. What they eat, what they think, any point they want to make. Look at the attention already.

Loonies will walk into a bookstore and go "whoa, 500 000 people read this book about how I raped C'Jais's sister?" and then go rape someone, too, just to get the attention. How would you feel?

With all respect, I think the point is an academic one. When someone does write such a book, every person who's mentally disabled enough to actually go out and rape someone because of it, will have plenty of access to equally "dangerous" works on the internet. You can't stop it, I feel.
Neither can you stop people from doing drugs. Should drugs be legalized?
Neiter can you stop people from stealing and robbing. Should stealing and robbing be legalized?

Of course there will always be "those" sites. The same goes for child porn and websites selling illegal narcotics. If someone went and legalized them "because it's hopeless to keep them illegal because they show up anyway", how would you feel?

In my personal opinion, it's just as much about the victims. A couple of years ago (just to give an example) two girl, 8 and 10, were raped and killed in a forest in Haugesund City, Norway. If one of the two rapists, say, Viggo Kristiansen, was to publish a book on how he raped those girls, glorifying it troughout the whole book, I'd speak up.

Why?
1. Well, how would family and friends feel?
2. People would go out and do the same thing. Why? Public attention.

Someone put my school on fire once. How many people claimed responsibility? Over a dozen. How many were guilty? Well, neither of those who turned themselves in. Just for attention. See how it works?

Glorifying rape isn't a political view anyhow, and I refuse to believe that there aren't people out there who commit crimes because others do.

Hitler was a crazy man, no doubt there, but you can't ban books because of the mental condition of the author alone. His views are widely regarded as skewed, but because you and I don't agree with them doesn't mean they're ripe for banning. It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis.
We're not in favour of banning it judging on mental condition and our opinion, but on the fact that he set off WW II.

If he never set off WW II, fine, it'd be another forgotten racist book which no one would read. Still anti-semitic and offensive, but not as good an example.

I think it's only crackpots who can't make those conclusions, and they'd wind up doing school shootings from playing Doom anyway

In other words, I think you're gearing your book banning towards individuals so stumped they'd be placed on asylums at the age of 4.
A lot of people can be insane and hide it for a long time. Did Sarah Yates get into an asylum? No. She was even allowed to have kids and ended up drowning them in the bathtub.

I know you didn't necessarily mean it literally, but that's my response.

Anarchy has never been in a position to prove itself as a working political system. Why do you want to ban it?

Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.
Frankly, I was using nazism as an example. I have yet to consider Das Kapital and anarchy books.

There is, however, the law banning books that are incentive to riots (spreading panic at an airport by persuading people into believing that there's a dirty bomb there, for instance).

Let me say it this way: I won't get in the way of a ban of any books written by Stalin advocating the slaughter of all those workers.

How has this turned into another debate about Christianity? I am all for discussions, but this has been done to death and it has little to do with the topic. Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed (not by all, SkinWalker and C'Jais are respectable fellows, who both just happens not to be Christian, and I respect them and I hope they respect me) whenever a religious topic is brought up?Seeing this thread was not a religious thread in the first place, I second that.

Can't someone merge all the christian stuff in a Christianity thread or something? I never started 10 threads on Buddhism, and I have yet to derail a single one by mentioning it. I respect the teachings of Christ, but there's a time and a place for everything, right?

Cosmos Jack
05-14-2003, 11:05 PM
For one... Christianity isn't being debated. It is being used as an example. It can be just as destructive as anything else, and it is widely excepted. I don't recall any forum rules that state "No using of examples"?:rolleyes:

ET Warrior
05-14-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Gee Wiz:rolleyes:

.I was just kidding..........:(

Homuncul
05-15-2003, 03:31 AM
I don't want to ban the world, only something I consider dengerous for common people. Glorifyed rape and Mein Kampf are in my banning list. The line between banning the book or let it live is too unstable as you mentioned and we have to draw it somewhere. There're many "yes" and "no" and the way censorer put accents on them defines whether the book would be published or banned. I also mentioned earlier that it's not banning we should fight. It's only for now. When the desease is cured and not the simptoms we would not need any restrictions. You want to drop people into the water and let them swim while they can't. Some will swim, many will drown. I hold to a more stable future way where freedom is achieved step by step and every single step takes efforts and test to define whether people can sustain themselves on that level. They're learning now to swim with help of their teachers and someday they will need there help nomore. That's main point about banning. If you say again that you will never ever would want to be tought by such teachers-censorers then I say (knowing some of your points) that you can swim faster than them, that you're selfsustained person and now look at those who can't swim...

C'Jais:
Furthermore, I infer that you want to ban murder-promoting books and internet sites as well. Do you have any idea how hard that's going to be? It's nigh impossible, and a quick look at the latest blockbusters will reveal plenty of movies with stumped, murdering people in the lead roles.

I can't jump over my head. I love murder myself when it's funny in the movie but I don't remember any movie where murder was actually glorified.

Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.

Yes... well maybe no. But at least it must be studied early in school.

Christianity is no more universal than other religions, and the fact that every time it has tried to be that, it's broken apart (remember the dark ages, and the seperation of church and state?).

I was talking about present day Christianity. Of course I remember history. I say then and now that it became universal nowadays.
Again dark ages where anyone speaking something out of the line was sentenced to death for heresy. I guess it's not the way today it's done. You may be ignored but not punished with death. Christianity overlooked it's methods (again long ago these were methods of single crazy old man).

munik:
I think that keeping Mein Kampf on the market may actually dissuade people from becoming Nazis. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was a maniac, I lost count of how many times he said "racial poisoning" and how Germany would become "Lords of the Earth". That sort of rhetoric would certainly stop me becoming a Nazi.

It won't help cauze some people really don't understand that Hitler was maniac . I know a lot of such people

BrodieCadden:
It is hard for me to enjoy myself here when every thread I go into turns into a ridicule of Christianity. This forum is for "intelligent discussion", I would think staying on topic is part and parcel of that statement, eh chaps? Thankyou

Christianity was only mentioned because it's very associative and from my opinion is easy to deal with and that's all. We stick to the topic perfectly. Just don't take it on your account. I' m christened non-christian who let Christianity live. Maybe you should stop worrying too.

Cosmos Jack
05-15-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
.I was just kidding..........:( I forgive you. ;)

ShadowTemplar
05-20-2003, 09:31 AM
C'Jack: You may want to note that Facism is a particular political movement. The catch-all word that you're looking for is 'Totalitarian' (which is, with a little light reasoning, synonymous with 'Religious'). Not that it matters much, I just like to get the terms right.

Cosmos Jack
05-20-2003, 03:27 PM
I don't know when I think of christians i think of Nazis and the like. So Facism best discribes how I feel about them. They both have their own form of cross. ;)

ShadowTemplar
05-21-2003, 07:12 AM
C'Jack: I'm thinking along the very same lines, but I still think that you are confusing Facism and Totalitarism:

Communism is Totalitarian.

Facism is totalitarian.

Nazism is totalitarian.

But Communism isn't Facistic

Neither is Nazism.

*Note* Somewhere else on this board I proved that religion will always be totalitarian, and that totalitarian regimes wil always be religious. I could try to dig it up for you, if you're interested.

Cosmos Jack
05-21-2003, 05:04 PM
Why I think Christians are Fascist...

fas∑cism n. 1. Often Fascism. a. (1)(_A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator_), (2) (_stringent socioeconomic controls,_) (3)_suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,_) (4)(_and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism._)

(1) The Dictator here is Jesus or God whatever you prefer.

(2) Socioeconomic control. They want to control everything from what we buy, to what read, and watch on TV. Even the games we play on computers.

(3) Suppression where to begin with Christians. Like above they want to control everything we see and think. In the past they have done this in some very cruel ways. Burning people at the stake isn't very godly if you ask me. Kind of goes hand in hand with shoving Jews in an oven wouldn't you say. The Christians did it before the Nazis.

(4) Each demented little branch on Christians think they are holier than all the rest and certainly holier than any other religion. Racism if made a little more broader to include religion would cover this. I have known very few Christians to tolerate people of other religious backgrounds. They do this to the point of segregation and shunning of people of other religions. The all time ketch fraise "Your going to hell."

Christians are by birth right Bigots. Bigot comes from "BI-GOT" which is old English for "BY-GOD"

Homuncul
05-22-2003, 03:18 AM
Why I think you're blaming the past and again single crazy old guys of Christianity. Is it that totalitarian these days?

CosmosJack:
The Dictator here is Jesus or God whatever you prefer

Dictators are always people who interpret god's words differently.

Socioeconomic control. They want to control everything from what we buy, to what read, and watch on TV. Even the games we play on computers.

Quite agree. They would want to if they could. You can measure their fascism by the amount of control they really have. It's insignificant.

Each demented little branch on Christians think they are holier than all the rest and certainly holier than any other religion. Racism if made a little more broader to include religion would cover this. I have known very few Christians to tolerate people of other religious backgrounds. They do this to the point of segregation and shunning of people of other religions. The all time ketch fraise "Your going to hell."

I know alot of christians who tolerate other non-christians. And I don't see Holy Inquisition in white cones flaming the non-christian world with terror. Thing's changed. It's not fascistic anymore neither it's totalitarian (not sure about the last one. I'd like to see what ShadowT can dig up.).

ShadowTemplar:
*Note* Somewhere else on this board I proved that religion will always be totalitarian, and that totalitarian regimes wil always be religious. I could try to dig it up for you, if you're interested.

I'd like to listen

ShadowTemplar
05-22-2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Homuncul
Why I think you're blaming the past and again single crazy old guys of Christianity. Is it that totalitarian these days?

[...]

I know alot of christians who tolerate other non-christians. And I don't see Holy Inquisition in white cones flaming the non-christian world with terror. Thing's changed. It's not fascistic anymore neither it's totalitarian (not sure about the last one. I'd like to see what ShadowT can dig up.).

Lemme put it this way (approximate years are added, incase you want to doublecheck with your historybook):

When Christianity was a newly fledged cult in ancient Rome (yr 0 - approx. 400) it was suppressed, because it was an enemy of the state. It behaved much like it does now. Charity, counsiling, ect, along with a massive advertisement campaign.

Once it had outmatched all other cults in size and power (approx. 400), it was no longer oppressed. Then it began a regime of utter terror, as all other cults were brutally suppressed, and it consolidated its position as the greatest power factor in the Empire.

When it wanted to get into Scandinavia (I don't have a year range on that, records vary, but it set it's eyes on Scandinavia pretty soon after having conquered the rest of Europe), it played nice again. It bought slaves and set them free, it cured people (by herbs, not miracles, mind, it preached tolerance and understanding.

Once it had a foothold (approx. 1000), it started brutally suppressing the old faith and culture.

Then came the Reformation (15-something, I think), during which Christianity was kicked hard in the butt. Once again it was oppressed, and it remains so to this day. And it suddenly started playing nice again.

The pattern that I'm seeing is: When out of power, Christianity (and, for that matter, all other religions as well) behaves nicely, preaches tolerance, forgiveness, and understanding. But when it is in power, it behaves in a way that doesn't leave Nazism or Communism anything behind.

Now, I'm not saying that this will happen instantly, but power corrupts, and it attracts the corrupted. And Christianity (and religion in general) has a notoriously poor history of ferreting out corrupt(ed) leaders.

So, I'm predicting that, should religion achive power over a society, it will gradually degenerate until it is (both mentally and technologically) at the stage of the Inquisition. And if you look at what's happened to those countries that have had Islamic revolutions, you'll see that they lend credibility to this theory.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Dictators are always people who interpret god's words differently.

Well, the priest is a pocket dictator. By the very fact that he claims to preach the truth. The-one-and-only-be-all-and-end-all-thruth. Sounds pretty dictatoric to me...

Originally posted by Homuncul
Quite agree. They would want to if they could. You can measure their fascism by the amount of control they really have. It's insignificant.

So, because Nazism is not in control, it's no longer totalitarian? Hmmm... And because Fascism is no longer in control, it's no longer facistic? I'm sure that you can see where the logic fails.

Originally posted by Homuncul
I'd like to listen

Sure, here goes:

1) A religion is a group of people sharing similiar beliefs.

2) In order for a group of people to share similiar beliefs, these beliefs must be invented (or defined, if you like that word better), as they cannot be documented.

3) In order for the beliefs to be fairly uniform (crossref: pnt 1), they must be defined by a relatively small group of people.

4) Since the decisions made by this group of people concerns faith, they must be taken unquestioningly, on face value (questioning them/trying to prove them would be an application of rationalism, which would mean that the end result would be deviod of faith, regardless of the outcome).

5) Since any group of people will, over time, work to obtain greater power (crossref: Social classes), the priesthood will, over time, consolidate its position at the top of society*, unless another class keeps them from getting to the top of society (ie: Keeps them at the bottom of society).

*Remember that there is no way that you can talk back to them without being branded a heretic (crossref: pnt 4)

6) Any class which is allowed to consolidate its position at the top of society unopposed will, over time, become permanently reactionary (if you're at the top, you desire a status quo, (crossref: pnt 5)).

7) Since the priesthood will become permanently reactionary over time, if they are at the top of society, society will become permanently reactionary over time.

8) Any permanently reactionary society is a totalitarian society.

9) Totalitarian regimes survive on the ignorance of the people.

Therefore:

All religions will become totalitarian unless they are kept at the bottom of society, ie: Are being oppressed.

And

All religions promote ignorance, as it serves the dual role of making people more suceptible to their preachings, thereby making it harder to oppress said religions, and enforcing totalitarian ideologies once in power.

q.e.d.

EDIT: I forgot: The above only proves that religion is totalitarian, but not that Totalitarism is religious. That goes as follows:

1) Totalitarism is based on irrationality (Nazis saying that they are the Łbermenchen, Commies saying that wheat planted in a cornfield will become corn over a few generations, because all that matters to your development is you environment, not your inheiritance (no wonder they ended up starving)).

2) Since it is irrational, it cannot be proven, and so must be believed.

3) Religion is the organised preaching/adherance to irrational beliefs.

4) Pts 2) and 3), when put together, lead, logically, to the following conclusion: Totalitarism is always religious.

q.e.d.

I posted this in the Ravening beast called Ignorance (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=92263&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) thread (which by the way Iíve just bumped).

Homuncul
05-23-2003, 04:24 AM
ShadowT, I liked your post. Quite a mind job and thanks for history lecture. Think you're right, well if not thinking too carefully (always a sceptic). I was confused first by the common thinking of the word religius. Still dictator's only Jesus and god's a method and a very clever one if people follow it for 2000 years.

So, because Nazism is not in control, it's no longer totalitarian? Hmmm... And because Fascism is no longer in control, it's no longer facistic? I'm sure that you can see where the logic fails.

NO, no, no! I never wanted to questioned logic, I just ment that their control is now as you say and I call associatively in a "sheep stage". It's insignificant because we live in scientific era, the most profound of all times, and I think that it's highly unklikely to be another totalitarian regime (I mean big one leading to WWIII or something). Humanity has experienced much of it already. I'm optimistic about that.

ShadowTemplar
05-23-2003, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by Homuncul
ShadowT, I liked your post. Quite a mind job and thanks for history lecture. Think you're right, well if not thinking too carefully (always a sceptic). I was confused first by the common thinking of the word religius.

Ok, that didn't make much sense to me, but I reckon that you say that you agree on at least part of it, right?

Originally posted by Homuncul
Still dictator's only Jesus and god's a method and a very clever one if people follow it for 2000 years.

Very, very clever. Has worked for far longer than 2kyrs. Christianity didn't invent that. And it still works.

Originally posted by Homuncul
NO, no, no! I never wanted to questioned logic, I just ment that their control is now as you say and I call associatively in a "sheep stage". It's insignificant because we live in scientific era, the most profound of all times, and I think that it's highly unklikely to be another totalitarian regime (I mean big one leading to WWIII or something). Humanity has experienced much of it already. I'm optimistic about that.

When I look around the world, I see religion on the rise, not on the wane. In Europe, the arrival of radical Muslim immigrants/refugees have caused a responding radicalisation of the local Christian groups, the ethnic/religious conflicts in ex-Jugoslavia, the clearly religiously motivated conflicts in Israel and Northern Ireland, the rising Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, the Shiiti (sp?) powergrap in Iraq, Bush's Christian-fundamentalist rethoric. All of this points towards a new Dark Age. Never have I so hoped that I am being wrong and overly paranoid, but I cannot help but wonder what should become of the current world order.

Homuncul
05-23-2003, 11:06 AM
When I look around the world, I see religion on the rise, not on the wane. In Europe, the arrival of radical Muslim immigrants/refugees have caused a responding radicalisation of the local Christian groups, the ethnic/religious conflicts in ex-Jugoslavia, the clearly religiously motivated conflicts in Israel and Northern Ireland, the rising Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, the Shiiti (sp?) powergrap in Iraq, Bush's Christian-fundamentalist rethoric. All of this points towards a new Dark Age. Never have I so hoped that I am being wrong and overly paranoid, but I cannot help but wonder what should become of the current world order.

Nothing bad'll happen. Hey, rush up! You're focusing only on the negative. Mtv's still alive. As long as it lives no other Inquisition could compete with it. No I mean it, there's nothing to worry about. Sure it's a bit crisis around the world, it's just we're facing something new.
But consider that, muslim terrorists don't bring sympathy for their religion. Bush speaks christian only as an opposition to the same muslim terrorists and personally I think it's a needed action for his part (for now). Israel is always in war, this permanent situation has encreased due to worldwide terrorism encrease. Iraq is so weak now that this powergrap is not surprising at all.
Pneumonia is everywhere, it may also be terrorist weapon, still China is not gonna adopt islam.

Jah Warrior
05-23-2003, 12:14 PM
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)

LOL, George Orwell, hehe good one man!!!:D

ET Warrior
05-23-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Jah Warrior
LOL, George Orwell, hehe good one man!!!:D

Oh yeah.....I......knew.....that..........GAH!!!

Sometimes I get confused with author names ;)