1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

10 Most Dangerous Books *run* its a book!

Discussion in 'Other Policies' started by palefrost, Aug 17, 2006.

  1. palefrost

    palefrost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. Martyr

    Martyr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm kind of appalled and not surprised at the same time...if that makes sense. I mean, just look at the judges, not to mention the banner ads.
     
  3. Furious George

    Furious George Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does that make me a danger to society if I've read at least half of those?
     
  4. Martyr

    Martyr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only if you're a liberal wiener.
     
  5. vicki2

    vicki2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1
    As I scrolled down the list, I started laughing harder. Yup, those are mighty dangerous books if you want to learn how to think!
     
  6. sarah

    sarah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it frightening that people actually think of books as dangerous. If you notice, the authors of these books are all infamous people. Just because an infamous person pens a book, does not make it dangerous. If anything I think it should be considered good because it gives us a glimpse into the minds of a twisted individual.
     
  7. Brandon

    Brandon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    2
    While I am not a fan of Engles and Marx(in fact I think they had no grasp of economics and human self-interest), calling books dangerous is asinine. Thinking that books are hurting the country is a precursor to a totalitarian state.
     
  8. sarah

    sarah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    wasn't book burning a tool of the Nazis??
    this seems like it is only a few steps away from banning the books altogether.
     
  9. Martyr

    Martyr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think book banning would occur.
     
  10. sarah

    sarah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was making a parallel to the fact that the books on that list are flagged, and the government knows when and where they are purchased...
    and that libraries in many places refuse to have them on the shelves.
     
  11. palefrost

    palefrost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Exactly! To them these are dangerous books lol.
     
  12. Jim

    Jim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    There would be no need for book burning in the United States because not enough Americans read for it to make a difference. These days, entertainment has more influence over public thought than any other use of media. Instead of the government burning subversive books, we have private companies organizing events where they smash Dixie Chicks CDs with a bulldozer because of things that band members said.
     
  13. sarah

    sarah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    As sad as it is that the Dixie Chicks are considered a threat...
     
  14. Jim

    Jim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Going back to what I said about the mass smashing of Dixie Chicks CDs, I think it is more dangerous for private corporations to engage in this kind of behavior than it is for the government to do it, for several reasons:

    1.) If the State were to burn books or smash CDs, what is happening would be more apparent to the public and might alert them to the nature of their government. (I hope this isn't just wishful thinking.)

    2.) Such an event as the Louisiana radio station's CD smashing appears more like a grassroots or popular campaign than a repressive action by people in power, which means it is more likely to garner public support. (If I am not mistaken, the radio station in question is owned by mega-conglomerate and ardent Bush supporter Clear Channel, the same corporation that warned its stations against playing Rage Against the Machine and other "offensive" music after Sept. 11.)

    3.) If an act is committed by a private entity, it is not subject to the same constitutional scrutiny as an act of the State, even if the act was clearly committed for the purpose of denigrating critics of the State and/or punishing dissent. In this way, government bodies can use their sway (or sometimes direct influence) over a private company to commit acts that would otherwise be illegal. In fact, given the use of false-front businesses by the DEA, CIA, and other agencies to perform long-term investigations, it wouldn't be too far-fetched for the government to set up fake businesses so that it can use them to oppress people.

    The whole thing just sucks. Sucks.
     
  15. sarah

    sarah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not be suprised at all if years from now it is discovered that exactly that is happening. and it more than sucks... I just don't know how to express how I feel about actions such as these.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice