Why can't we Ban Books? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

rabid reader

08-26-2007, 04:47 PM

Well the one thing you assume when saying sentences such as:

If certain foods affects our physical health it is ban Is that just because it is like this, it must be just. But the funny thing is that a lot of democracies operate on a constructive, destructive bases, meaning one government makes the laws and then the next government brakes down the ones that are unpopular. Your example of drug control for instance has seen itself abolished in some states, like the Netherlands or Mexico, whereas in states like Canada drug policies are moving toward a lessening of serious punishment.

For unhealthy foods, in some nations bans on foods don't exist so long as there is an accurate assessment of what a person is disgusting on the food product in question. If we were to just ban all unhealthy foods, there would be no beef industry and people would sit down at thanksgiving with an all white turkey that has been butchered until dark meat was only a fable.

The other thing you assume is that any book is hazardous to mental health. I have never seen a statistical figure proving such or even trying to prove such. I think that books of any kind teach something to the reader about open mindedness, and thinking out side of ones self, even if it is something as atrocious as Mien Kampf, one begins to understand the mindset of such unadulterated hate. And by doing so, may be able to design ways to counter it.

Finally the last point I will try to make is this: When do we draw the line, it would seem undefinable, is it going to be anything that could possibly offend anyone? Because eventually you are only gonna have Jane Rides Bike books and will have successfully destroyed literature. If it is anything that can up promote your social contract in your soceity, how can your culture receive criticism and therefore improve upon itself. Finally if it is things like hate scriptures you wish abolished wouldn't it be better to use them and teach to students and the general populace why they are wrong and what the fallacies in hate scriptures are found, because in banning them it seems that we are unable to argue against them and in that sense validating their arguments, and in that twist seems to encourage the populace to follow them as they are unchallenged.

applepie

08-26-2007, 05:01 PM

How do you determine which books have an adverse effect on people's mental health? With foods, drugs, and machines you can scientifically document the damages. Mental health is harder than physical health to assess. Do you ban a book because it depresses someone? Do you choose to ban one because you disapprove of the subject matter which may change the outlook someone has on the world? Is a book considered damaging if it doesn't support the beliefs of the majority? Also, what do you consider damaging someone's mental health, and would you base a ban on the people who are mentally weakest? I can't say that I would ever support the banning of a book for mental health reasons. The simple solution would be to just not read, or watch TV, or even have intellectual discussions if you are that fragile. I just can't see a book being that harmful to anyone in the first place.

Lote-Tree

08-26-2007, 05:03 PM

even if it is something as atrocious as Mien Kampf

Wouldn't the world been better off if such vile idealogy never published?

Would we have communism and Russian Gulags if Das Kapital was banned?

Do you ban a book because it depresses someone?

Yes. Why not? American dream is the pursuit of Happiness?

Do you choose to ban one because you disapprove of the subject matter which may change the outlook someone has on the world?

Subject matter may be vile idealogy?

Is a book considered damaging if it doesn't support the beliefs of the majority?

Not necessarily.

Also, what do you consider damaging someone's mental health, and would you base a ban on the people who are mentally weakest?

We have Ratings on Films based on their content - why not books?

I can't say that I would ever support the banning of a book for mental health reasons.

why not? if narcotics affected the mental health you would ban it.

The simple solution would be to just not read, or watch TV, or even have intellectual discussions if you are that fragile.

And the drug problem would be solved if people stopped using it?

rabid reader

08-26-2007, 05:11 PM

Wouldn't the world been better off if such vile idealogy never published?

Would we have communism and Russian Gulags if Das Kapital was banned?

The books didn't commit the crimes they justified them. The mentality existed, always has, and unless their arguments are countered one can assume they always will exist. As a matter of fact I think the worst things anti-Semites could have done was write a book based on giving reason for their hatred, because by default these same fools are forced to submit to arguments that flaw their reason. When you publish a book of philosophy or political doctrine, every person who sites the book for supporting evidence is therefore held accountable to the flaws in the reason found in the books. By banning them and not exposing the flaws, we then make it seem as though we have no reason not to think certain ethnic groups are less then us and sources of evil. By doing that, instead of banning a mindset, which is the intention I would assume for banning a book, you are in fact validating the mindset. Instead of saying: "this book is wrong and here is why"- you are in fact saying- "This book is unseemly but we cannot fight it so we wish to destroy its reasoning"

And the drug problem would be solved if people stopped using it? But banning them didn't stop them from using it, it actually because more attractive to the youth when you put age limits or banishments on certain things.

Lote-Tree

08-26-2007, 05:15 PM

The books didn't commit the crimes they justified them.

Obviously the books did not commit the crime but the idealogy contained in it that did it. And idealogy is quite clear. It is the idealogy of hatred. And thus should be banned.

rabid reader

08-26-2007, 05:19 PM

Obviously the books did not commit the crime but the idealogy contained in it that did it. And idealogy is quite clear. It is the idealogy of hatred. And thus should be banned.

I think you should read the rest of my post before to understand why that is not wise.

Virgil

08-26-2007, 05:22 PM

If certain foods affects our physical health it is banned.

If certain drugs affects our physical health it is banned.

If a machine damages our physical health it is banned.

And if a book damages our Mental Health - why can't we ban this?

After all we ban narcotics because it affects our mental and physical health?

So anyone for banning books? :D

Good one Lote. No I would not support banning books, even those that may be harmful. A book or idea never harmed anyone, it's the person who takes action. For every bad idea, it is imperative that books are written to expose that idea and present better ideas and give those ideas ample opportunity to be expressed.

Lote-Tree

08-26-2007, 05:26 PM

A book or idea never harmed anyone, it's the person who takes action.

OK lets go with this for now. The Person that takes action. And what motivates this person to action? What motivates a terrorist to blow him/her self up? - is it not the IDEALOGY?

Granny5

08-26-2007, 05:28 PM

rabid reader

08-26-2007, 05:34 PM

OK lets go with this for now. The Person that takes action. And what motivates this person to action? What motivates a terrorist to blow him/her self up? - is it not the IDEALOGY?

If you are not willing to argue against the ideology of hate you are validating by saying that you "feel they are wrong, but don't really think they are" instead of saying "You're wrong." By banning their writings you are saying you are afraid of them, when we shouldn't be afraid them, I mean if you have read Mien Kampf then you would know that it is a book fill with baseless accusations are writing of history. There's nothing to fear but the mental health of the writer. anti-Semitism was around LONG before Hitler wrote, and its still around now.

Lote-Tree

08-26-2007, 05:36 PM

I don't understand how anyone could give away the power to decide what can be read. I personally don't trust anyone with my freedom to read what I want. Who would make the decision on what would be banned? I sure wouldn’t trust the government to make that decision. I wouldn’t trust any religious leaders, either. I’ve just started re-reading 1984 and the whole subject scares me.

Who decides which films get rated?

Who decides which foods are fit for human consumption?

Who decides which narcotics are dangerous?

Ultimately it is us...

If you are not willing to argue against the ideology of hate you are validating by saying that you "feel they are wrong, but don't really think they are" instead of saying "You're wrong." By banning their writings you are saying you are afraid of them, when we shouldn't be afraid them, I mean if you have read Mien Kampf then you would know that it is a book fill with baseless accusations are writing of history. There's nothing to fear but the mental health of the writer. anti-Semitism was around LONG before Hitler wrote, and its still around now.

I take your point.

But is there anything to argue against Idealogy of Hatred? It is idealogy of hatred. That is all. Do you need further argument against it?

Virgil

08-26-2007, 05:41 PM

I don't understand how anyone could give away the power to decide what can be read. I personally don't trust anyone with my freedom to read what I want. Who would make the decision on what would be banned? I sure wouldn’t trust the government to make that decision. I wouldn’t trust any religious leaders, either. I’ve just started re-reading 1984 and the whole subject scares me.

OK lets go with this for now. The Person that takes action. And what motivates this person to action? What motivates a terrorist to blow him/her self up? - is it not the IDEALOGY?

As Granny asks above, who decides? The person making the decision could be the one supporting the bad ideology. I don't know much about the details of Nazi history, but I speculate that Hitler banned all forms of ideology which did not support his ideas. So banning is a double edged sword. You would have to trust the person doing the banning. And it could back fire.

rabid reader

08-26-2007, 05:49 PM

I take your point.

But is there anything to argue against Idealogy of Hatred? It is idealogy of hatred. That is all. Do you need further argument against it?

There is two flaws, one is in my reasoning which is that people when exposed to reason will fold to reason or try their best to defend their stand point therefore improving themselves.

The second flaw is in your reasoning, and it is a two part flaw: One is one I have already explained where denying an argument from being voiced is validating the argument. And the second flaw in your reasoning is that you are mimicking the hatred of hate literature through your desire to eradicate it. In all the hate literature's I can think of, silencing critics is a MAJOR aspect, as they believe criticism is poisonous to the populace as you believe that their writings are poisonous to us. So in banning there works we create this very ironic situation. Where we in fact begin to rally under a Nazi like cry. In the end I would feel saver trusting the nature of human reasoning over trusting the fascist tactics of censorship and book burning (now I don't want you to think I am using this word as scare tactic or anything, as it is not intend to be, but is merely intended to have the ideal linked to its creators).

AuntShecky

08-26-2007, 07:22 PM

To quote Mark Twain again, "No young girl was ever corrupted by a book." I do not want any other person, party, organization, and least of all some government telling me what I can eat, drink, or do behind closed doors. If no crime is committed, it -- to quote that wonderful tune by Bessie Smith -- "Ain't nobody's business what I do." I don't want anyone to tell me what I may or may not read. That's how my country got into the "quagmire" it is now -- we allowed other people to do our thinking for us!

papayahed

08-26-2007, 09:37 PM

Is anything really and truely banned? If you want something bad enough there's always a way to get it.

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 02:22 AM

To quote Mark Twain again, "No young girl was ever corrupted by a book."

Books can corrupt us. Books can turns us into Evil. Mein Keimpf is an Evil book?

I do not want any other person, party, organization, and least of all some government telling me what I can eat, drink, or do behind closed doors.

But we do these things don't we? We rate films, set drinkng age, sexual consent age?...

If no crime is committed,

Corrupting yourself with vile idealogy is a crime. We called them terrorists?

"Ain't nobody's business what I do."

But it is! Freedom without responsibility is Anarchy!?

applepie

08-27-2007, 02:49 AM

Who decides what is considered good and bad??? To impose a ban on literature is to impose a ban on people's free thought. You may as well suggest placing a ban on everything that a person thinks. To say that one idea is better than another, and that one is evil while the other isn't is fairly narrow minded. You can only judge an idea on the context of the society in which it functions. What will work for some isn't going to work for others. The feudal system was horrid, the way that serfs "belonged" to the owner of an estate and the land, should we ban any books that still talk about it? Many Americans don't support communism, should Marx be banned? What about the people who are not in support of capatalism? Should those books be banned as well? If you start to regulate ideas there will be a conformist culture around the world where nothing changes and no one has original thoughts. Well they may have a new and imaginative color for bunnies, that shouldn't offend or distress anyone. Well wait, what about people who have a phobia about rabbits. We can't damage them so no books on purple bunnies either... I'm sure you see where I'm going even if that is an extreame example.

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 02:58 AM

Who decides what is considered good and bad???

Who decides which film to rate or not?
Who decides which food is fit for human consumption?

The fact is we ultimately do...

To impose a ban on literature is to impose a ban on people's free thought.

Aye. And if this "free thought" is damaging to other people?
In UK there is a smoking ban in public places becomes it affects the health of non-smokers. So why can't we ban Free Thought which affects the health of others?

You may as well suggest placing a ban on everything that a person thinks.

Not necessarily. Anything that affects the health and well being.

To say that one idea is better than another, and that one is evil while the other isn't is fairly narrow minded.

Is not Mein Kempf Evil?

should Marx be banned?

Yes. Das Kapital created the Russian Gulags.

If you start to regulate ideas there will be a conformist culture around the world

What's wrong with that? It is the Power of Microsoft Windows Software that is allowing everyone on this forum to communicate. Effectively you have conformed to this. And looks what happened? A new world has opened up where we can communicate with everyone in the world. Isn't that something to be proud of?

where nothing changes and no one has original thoughts.

there is no originality in the idealogy of hatred.

TheFifthElement

08-27-2007, 05:27 AM

Can you put Jordan's autobiography at the top of the list - that must be damaging to mental health, and a danger to the public.

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 07:00 AM

Can you put Jordan's autobiography at the top of the list - that must be damaging to mental health, and a danger to the public.

What a waste of precious trees in printing them. So yes damage to the environment...ban it! :D

Hyacinth42

08-27-2007, 07:10 AM

If certain drugs affects our physical health it is banned.

After all we ban narcotics because it affects our mental and physical health?

Well, that's certaintly not true ;) Last time I checked, cigarettes and alcohol were perfectly legal. While cigarettes may only affect your health (unless you go into secondhand smoke crap) alcohol causes a huge amount of deaths every year.... And marijiuana doesn't really affect you at all, it's not physically addictive, it's banned because you can grow it in your garden and therefore the government can't make money ;)

Anyways, back to the banning book subject:

OK lets go with this for now. The Person that takes action. And what motivates this person to action? What motivates a terrorist to blow him/her self up? - is it not the IDEALOGY?

Does that mean we have to ban things like the Koran? Or even the Bible? They motivate a lot of people to do "bad" things... I don't think people would allow it...

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 07:12 AM

Does that mean we have to ban things like the Koran? Or even the Bible? They motivate a lot of people to do "bad" things... I don't think people would allow it...

But the world would have been more a peaceable place?

dramasnot6

08-27-2007, 07:34 AM

The way I see it, there are two major problems with banning books:
1) What books should be banned is in the eye of the beholder. Some people think Harry Potter should be banned, and that it hurts people mentally, where as I would disagree. A literary case of "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"
2) Even if we disagree with what someone is saying, we have to respect everyones right to free speech.

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 07:36 AM

2) Even if we disagree with what someone is saying, we have to respect everyones right to free speech.

Absolute Free Speech? That can't and does not exist. Only moderated form.

dramasnot6

08-27-2007, 07:45 AM

Free enough to not ban books

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 10:09 AM

Free enough to not ban books

But some books should be banned. They harm your mental health. If we can ban other things in life because it harms us in some way...why can't we do this with books?

Granny5

08-27-2007, 10:21 AM

But some books should be banned. They harm your mental health. If we can ban other things in life because it harms us in some way...why can't we do this with books?

Exactly what books? And who would you want to make that decision? Who knows me well enough to know what will harm my mental health? Who knows YOU well enough? If a book would harm you but not me, would it be banned for me too? What if a book would only harm fourteen people in the would, would it be banned for everyone? Where would you want the line to be drawn? And, most important, why would you want to give up any freedom?

AuntShecky

08-27-2007, 10:28 AM

I believe the word is "ideology."
Please, no book banning. If the U.S.government wanted to ban printed matter, the first document it would have to
abolish is the Constitution. To me, there is no evil worse than to have someone else attempt to do my thinking for me.

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 10:44 AM

I believe the word is "ideology."

Yes. Bad speller ;-)

To me, there is no evil worse than to have someone else attempt to do my thinking for me.

But we frequently let other people do our thinking for us? Scientists, Doctors etc...

Exactly what books?

Simple. Anybook that espouses the Ideology of Hatred for one?

Lambert

08-27-2007, 10:55 AM

Simple. Anybook that espouses the Ideology of Hatred for one?

Completely Specious. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A definition that broad would threaten artistic freedom in it's entirety

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 11:01 AM

A definition that broad would threaten artistic freedom in it's entirety

Artistic Freedom is never absolute. It is always moderated in any society.

Lambert

08-27-2007, 11:10 AM

Artistic Freedom is never absolute. It is always moderated in any society.

Again, specious. How can any civilised moderate artistic freedoms entirely?

Writers have always tended to go against societal norms, so it would be impossible to suppress so-called subversive literature perennially.

Cases in point: Rabelais, Joyce, D.H. Lawrence and a slew of other writers....

Granny5

08-27-2007, 11:12 AM

Simple. Anybook that espouses the Ideology of Hatred for one?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Who would decide what "espouses the Ideology of Hatred"? Most books could be included in that. Who would decide?

jon1jt

08-27-2007, 11:46 AM

If certain foods affects our physical health it is banned.

If certain drugs affects our physical health it is banned.

If a machine damages our physical health it is banned.

And if a book damages our Mental Health - why can't we ban this?

After all we ban narcotics because it affects our mental and physical health?

So anyone for banning books? :D

yeah, i am, all stupid books. :D somebody is bound to be thinking, what is a "stupid book?" example: harry potter. the condition would be banning it only after it's had a fair reading and poses a public harm.

books contain the potencies to cause greater harm to society than any Nazi army ever could. let's not be naive to that possibility. there are many examples.

Lambert

08-27-2007, 11:57 AM

This is quite possibly the most absurd and sophomoric debate I've ever witnessed. Utterly trivial and superfluous.

NikolaiI

08-27-2007, 11:58 AM

What about Hairy Potter? hahahahhaa okay

but, so, I take it Lote is for banning books?

There are some books that are banned, like books that tell you how to make drugs or weapons. I had a friend who sold chess books at tournaments, traveling around the country in a van, but he used to sell weapons books at gun shows. Anyway he had quite a few stories of how the government harassed him at home and at gun shows and later at chess tournaments, even though he was only selling chess books. They would block people from going to his booth, physically...he says they've even sabotaged his vehicle and home and threatened his family(!). He was at war with them.

I don't know if this is getting into politics or not, but I am against book-banning. Since I assume we are talking about the government; I want them to have a lot less power, not more.

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 12:57 PM

This is quite possibly the most absurd and sophomoric debate I've ever witnessed. Utterly trivial and superfluous.

But humanity thrives on these trivial and superflous ;-)
Look at the celeb culture :D

yeah, i am, all stupid books. :D

Thats a good start :D

but, so, I take it Lote is for banning books?

Some books Niko are indeed harmful. They disturb you. They provide you with dreams and apsirations that you can never fulfil. They make you depress. Thus books can damage you.

And if something is damaging - should we not ban it? :D

jon1jt

08-27-2007, 03:47 PM

Simple. Anybook that espouses the Ideology of Hatred for one

that's a start but too often this standard gets lost in a debate about the Nazis or Mein Kampf.

can anyone think of other suitable justifications for banning books?

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 04:15 PM

that's a start but too often this standard gets lost in a debate about the Nazis or Mein Kampf.

I hope not!

can anyone think of other suitable justifications for banning books?

Yes. It corrupts your mind. And gives hopes and asipirations to dreams that you can never fulfil. It makes you depressed. It messes with your minds :D

papayahed

08-27-2007, 04:18 PM

Yes. It corrupts your mind. And gives hopes and asipirations to dreams that you can never fulfil. It makes you depressed. It messes with your minds :D

If you want to ban everything that "corrupts" the mind, gives hopes and aspirations, makes you depressed, and messes with your mind I guess we'll all have to go around with blindfolds and ear plugs.

Lote-Tree

08-27-2007, 04:21 PM

If you want to ban everything that "corrupts" the mind, gives hopes and aspirations, makes you depressed, and messes with your mind I guess we'll all have to go around with blindfolds and ear plugs.

Not necessarily. Books are recent invention.

papayahed

08-27-2007, 04:32 PM

Not necessarily. Books are recent invention.

huh? I didn't mention books.

NikolaiI

08-27-2007, 05:32 PM

I hope not!

Yes. It corrupts your mind. And gives hopes and asipirations to dreams that you can never fulfil. It makes you depressed. It messes with your minds :D

What books do this to you? Neither Crime and Punishment nor any of Stephen R. Donaldson's books have done this to me, although they describe some pretty deep human suffering and insanity. In the Gap Cycle, for instance, Stephen describes a villain-turned-hero who was so evil..when he was a baby his mom left him in the cradle, among other things, so it talks about how threatening he perceives the universe, cold and empty, like the world outside his crib. In "Ender's Shadow," by Card, we also get to see a psycho-villain at work, but that one didn't disturb me in the least.

Anyway, what books are you thinking about? Surely something in particular brought on this topic?

Edit: oh, in the Gap Cycle, Angus was actually tortured in the crib.. which was a cycle passed down to his mother I think.

Granny5

08-27-2007, 05:48 PM

This is quite possibly the most absurd and sophomoric debate I've ever witnessed. Utterly trivial and superfluous.

Lambert, Your post makes more sense than any other on this thread.
Thanks!

Hyacinth42

08-28-2007, 07:59 AM

Well, I don't see how you could accomplish banning any of those books... You'd have to ban things like Oedipus, MacBeth, Diary of Anne Frank, and a whole bunch of other classic that I can't think of, as well as History books, war/combat books, smut books, and religous books.... And, what with the world (or at least the US) going insane and stuff, any book that does not represent "all cultures" evenly, could be considered to be "promoting racism", and would therefore also have to be banned...

The only way to implement what you want would be with a fascist or socialist or totalitarian government, which would be worse than not banning the books.