The voters have decided that TheCombatWombat is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Also about Books+73Reading is noise for the eyes, the same way sound is noise for the ears, amirite?
Also by TheCombatWombat+10Thank you, M. Knight Shamalamadingdong for butchering my favorite animated TV series. amirite?
Also by TheCombatWombat+14Bank of America sucks, amirite?
Also about Books+13We wish we could inject information directly into our brains, but that's exactly what we do when we listen to a lecture or read a book. amirite?
Also about Books+78Dumb statement of the day from the frog. "Do you even read what you write?", amirite?
Hogwarts has a great system. Use a restricted section instead of banning them completely.
But it's far too easy to get silly teachers who love autographs to sign a note...
Well we can just let them Obliviate themselves.
That would include breaking a wand, which, in today's economy, is very wasteful.
I think books should not be banned, but should be limited based on the maturity of the students... I mean, no, 8th grade students should not be reading about rape, incest, etc. However, a junior who is nearly an adult is most likely mature enough to read it. And if not, it's a personal problem. And also, some less socially acceptable parts of literature are a part of our culture that students need to be exposed to, not to make them feel uncomfortable, but to give them an adequate taste of culture, past and present. (Huck Finn and the n-word issue is prime example.)
With the person who made the comments about the "How to Build a Bomb" book, if schools did a better job of protecting the safety of their students, kids wouldn't be reading a book like that with evil intentions.
I agree. When I said that, I was thinking more along the lines of Invisible Man, graphic stuff, that 8th graders don't need to be exposed to regardless of whether the outside world has already done that job. But I do agree that some level of mature material is acceptable, and even healthy, for younger kids.
I read the invisible man in 6th grade.
I don't think books should be banned. Period.
So what if an 8th grader reads a book which includes rape and incest? It's not like not letting them read the book will protect them from knowing about it, because they most likely already do. And those are things that happen to young children in the world everyday.
Usually, from what I've seen, when authors write about sensitive subjects like those, they do it is a somewhat tasteful matter, as in not extremely graphic.
So if a book contains this material, it's not up to the school to decide what may be okay for the student's age level, at least past the age of 12.
Now for a book on building bombs, why would a school be carrying that type of book anyway..?
I have that book... Read it a while ago
Love that book (:
I think it's been 6 for me... so Julian it seems we're carrying on a two front conversation here.
I think books can be banned from assigned school readings or they could just not be carried in the school library. Some books just may be inappropriate for schools. However, books shouldn't be banned outside of those types of establishments.
Usually if a book is risque they have kids sign a permission slip.
Those types of establishments are what ban books most of the time.
thats okay though. if they don't feel comfortable with you reading it there, its their building, their rules, and you should respect it. Read it on your own time in your own place then.
I know. I was merely pointing it out.
Books shouldn't be banned. Ever. If there's anything about America that I feel strongly about, it's the first ammendment.
People are entitled to certain freedoms and the freedom to express their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are, is far too important to restrict in any way.
If you don't want your kids reading certain books, parents should take a look at the books and see what they're like. All they'd have to do is read an online summary and skim a couple pages and that would tell them if anything significantly raunchy or violent happened in the book. Most libraries seperate their books by age anyway. Just make sure you don't let your ten year old check out a YA book or they'll be asking what porn is and why Pudge and Alaska were watching it alone.
There's a difference between allowing immoral things to exist and leading people to believe those immoral ideas. Letting Mein Kompf exist doesn't mean every is going to read it or that people who do are going to become Nazi's.
To me, writing and books are art. That would be like banning art, which is how people express themselves. Therefore, you would pretty much be banning how some people express themselves. It would be taking away our rights as well.
Just because something is published doesn't mean anyone's going to read it. Because there's a book called, "How to Build a Bomb" doesn't mean anyone's going to read it and act on the book. Even if they do, it's not the book's fault. It's the person who acted on their idea.
Some people find some books interesting. For example, I have a book on ancient runes and how to cast them and whatnot. I find that interesting, and I believe in that kind of stuff. That doesn't mean I'm going to start going around casting "spells" on people.
You need to take a hard look at some disgusting and disturbed authors. The most recent banned book controversy was "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-Lover's Code of Conduct" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am...edophile_guide). Do you really think people should be able to order that at will? I certainly don't. Of course you don't ban everything, but some books just cross the line.
I would have to agree that's a bit disturbing. But people have the right of free speech. Just because it's out there doesn't mean someone will buy it and use it. Just because you might have access gun doesn't necessarily mean you're going to go into school/work and kill everyone. But I can see your point.
But what if someone does buy it and read it and then acts on it? That child molestation was clearly preventable. No good is coming from that book, but there's a potential that bad is, why not stop it?
If someone buys a book on child molestation with plans to act on it, personally, i think there's something already wrong with them.
Yes, but maybe they were just like into child pornography. But then they read the book and they see that other people actually act on it and are obviously free so why shouldn't they? See what I mean?
I can see your point, but I still think it's wrong to ban a book. I mean, I don't really think the book could be blamed for them going from child porn to child molestation. I mean, it may have give them ideas and such, but I don't think the book should be held responsible. It was the person who molested a child, not the book, ya know?
I'm pretty sure if someone was going to molest a child, they wouldn't need to read a book to do so.
That is true, but it puts the thought in people's minds that pedophilia is normal and there are others just like them. I can't see any good coming from pedophiles interacting with each other.
They also shouldn't change them. Just leave Huckleberry Finn alone.
I've used this example before, but...
Would you want someone reading a book called "How to Build a Bomb"?
Or an 8th grader reading about rape and incest for her English class?
There has to be SOME limits...
To me, what bothers me is when schools or libraries ban books. I personally believe it should be the parent's (or guardian's) choice if the children should read the book
Libraries shouldn't ban books, but the school shouldn't allow teachers to assign extremely mature books. My friend had to read a book that involved rape, incest, murder, violence, and killing an animal in disgusting detail.
What book was that, and at what age did your friend have to read it?
The Painted Bird, and 14.
I hate "examples" like this. Just because a book called "How To Build A Bomb" exists does not mean that someone has to read it, or is even going to read it.
There have been a few school-massacre scares in my county these past few years.
And there are plenty of mentally unstable people out there. They shouldn't have the opportunity to get their hands on a book that enables them to harm people.
I don't disagree that there are mentally unstable people who might get ideas from books. But the feelings and everything would be there before reading a book about it; books can't enable anyone to do anything. And that's beside the point- when you start to ban and censor books, it's essentially telling people what they can and cannot think and say, which is wrong on so many levels and more dangerous to society than anything else I can think of. And it's also taking away the author's artistic license.
I'm all for freedom of speech and our rights, but you need limits. You can get sued or put in jail for harassment and threats, even though you have freedom of speech.
Some books can just be downright dangerous, though.
Books aren't dangerous. Some of the people who read them are. Books don't read themselves.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm a writer and artist so I'm pretty sensitive to the whole censorship/banning thing xD
If they have their mind set on building a bomb, a banned book will not stop them. it may even encourage them.
It may not stop them, but why make it easier for them to access it?
And you do know V for Vendetta was about Anarchy and not Monarchy right?
Most people wouldn't get a book on building a bomb. They'd look it up online.
Stopping them will make it worse, if you look at how portugal decriminalized drugs, the age at which younger children were using drugs rised and drug crimes dropped.
So more younger kids were doing drugs? That's a good thing?
No the opposite, the average age rose.
If it was 11 it is now 12 as an example.
Oh well, that somewhat makes sense
What? If a book exists, then the possibility of someone reading is also exists... no one HAS to read it, but someone COULD read it. And it IS enabling someone, because it's giving that person the knowledge it takes to BUILD a bomb.... Are you a troll or a dumbass?
People can also read books and other things online. Do you want to ban the Internet, too?
YES, if we're talking about censorship, then I guess it should be censored.... I mean it's not like porn, where if you watched it (and you're underage), you will explode... teehee. I mean you wouldn't want child pornography online, why would you want how to build a bomb instructions there?
I'm neither, thank you very much.
Welp what other POSSIBLE explanation is there for the things you just said? HMMM?
Uh, the explanation would be common sense and the protection of the author's rights. I think I have presented a good argument (and I did not have to resort to name calling to do so).
Oh you didn't name call anyone? Woohoo, yay. Oh you must be a genius for not reverting to name calling. Name calling people automatically disqualifies you from arguments hip hop hoorah.
Anyways if you think not insulting anyone made your argument better, think again. Some people NEED to be insulted (for example... YOU).
Such an American ideology... Your rights aren't always a good thing, sometimes the government HAS to step in and draw the line. I'll give you an example (even your puny mind can understand): should a guy who has shot and killed 10 people (then is magically released from prison) be allowed to bear arms, just because of the Second Amendment? Do you think HE should have rights, just like anyone else? See your rights are privileges not rights... when you fuck up, you get them taken away from you.... Writing a book on how to build bombs, is fucking up. Or posting the instructions online... that's also fucking up
I never said it disqualified you from arguments, and I'm sorry that I was a little rude about it. My brain wasn't fully awake yet. Now I'm just wondering why I "need" to be insulted?
Well, we are all entitled to our opinions. Like I said before, I'll admit that I'm a little biased on the subject because I am a writer and artist myself. So I can't really look at this objectively. But if you're asking my opinion on the matter, then yes, I do believe that the man in your situation has the same rights as anyone else does. But that really has nothing to do with banning books. The government has NO right to dictate what people can and cannot read; that is dictating essentially what people can and cannot think. And that will never end well.
You are just saying he deserves the same rights as anyone else, just to disagree with me... this man does NOT deserve to have the same rights as everyone else, especially when it comes to guns.... I'm not even going to argue that... if you actually believe that this guy deserves to buy a gun, then there's no point in continuing this argument. And it's NOT limiting what a person can read, it's limiting what a person CAN write. And oh you're an artist... let us all bow down to the GREAT and magnificent artist. I'm an artist too, I am getting paid to do a painting for a university... my poems have been published in local magazines and I have design tattoos, but I would NEVER take advantage of that and express my creativity in a negative light.... You, my friend are one of those people who take advantage of something, just because you can and not even because you actually want to.
Besides Chrome man, thinks your side of the argument is dumb, that automatically makes m...
I'm really unsure as to why you're making personal attacks on my character and making assumptions about me as a person. I'm just going to stop arguing right now. I have my beliefs and you can have yours, no hard feelings.
There weren't any personal attacks? Anyways, you can keep your wrong opinions to yourself, I didn't want them in the first place.
Yeah, they weren't person attacks. You mocked their MENTION of being and artist, their opinions, and accused them of condoning murder. No personal attacks, though, guys, so it's ok!
You just jumped from BOOK BANNING to MASS MURDER. Jesus, stop accusing people of anarchy because they don't agree with where you draw the line on freedom of speech.
lol "wrong opinions".... oh, dearest.... I feel for you.
If you're not smart enough to understand the analogy, then you're not smart enough to reply.
Yeah, I think there are some limits... but Huck Finn definitely isn't one of them!
Lmao that book was banned? People can be overly sensitive...
You've got a point there. I do mostly agree with this post, though.
True, I suppose. I think How to Build a Bomb should be banned, but I think a novel about rape and incest is okay, as long as the reader is mature enough to handle it.