NationStates Jolt Archive

And you know the reporter loved using this joke (http://www.hcnonline.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1574&dept_id=532215&newsid=17270600).
A Caney Creek High School dad is fired up because the Conroe Independent School District uses the book "Fahrenheit 451" as classroom reading material.
Yep. A parent is pissed about Fahrenheit 451 being used in the classroom and wants it, you guessed it, banned from the class.

Oh, the irony. It's so... hilarious, yet depraved.

And you know the reporter loved using this joke (http://www.hcnonline.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1574&dept_id=532215&newsid=17270600).

Yep. A parent is pissed about Fahrenheit 451 being used in the classroom and wants it, you guessed it, banned from the class.

Again?

Farenheit 451 has been banned from so many places that it becomes less Irony=funny and more Irony=looking at Canadian brochures.

And you know the reporter loved using this joke (http://www.hcnonline.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1574&dept_id=532215&newsid=17270600).

Yep. A parent is pissed about Fahrenheit 451 being used in the classroom and wants it, you guessed it, banned from the class.

Why? because it posits that watching TV and being isolated from humanity by our personal listening devices will make us stupid and violent?

And that being educated is viewed by ignorant numbskulls as a bad thing?

My GOD! They're trying to teach my kid that READING AND BEING EDUCATED IS IMPORTANT!!!! BURN THAT BOOK!!!!!

nice irony.

however

Alton Verm said he doesn't understand how the district can punish students for using bad language, yet require them to read a book with bad language as part of a class.
he makes an interesting point, maybe the school shouldn't punish children for using "bad language". ;)

most recently here the same (okay similar) arguement was made that forced the highschool near me to change their prom theme from "James Bond Casino Royale" to something else because "if gambling is against school rules then why have a Casino theme prom?"

he makes an interesting point, maybe the school shouldn't punish children for using "bad language". ;)

The high school actually has time to punish kids for using "bad" language?

o_O

This must be a GREAT place to live[/actually being sincere]

nice irony.

however


he makes an interesting point, maybe the school shouldn't punish children for using "bad language". ;)

most recently here the same (okay similar) arguement was made that forced the highschool near me to change their prom theme from "James Bond Casino Royale" to something else because "if gambling is against school rules then why have a Casino theme prom?"

Does anyone really get punished for cursing at school anymore?

Does anyone really get punished for cursing at school anymore?
I don't know, upon further thought (okay actual thought) that's not really a good arguement, I mean I would have to either not let my kids read To Kill a Mocking Bird or try to legalize incestual rape.....

yeah. sorry, my brain is so broke tonight.

"if gambling is against school rules then why have a Casino theme prom?"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"...he makes an interesting point, maybe the school shouldn't punish children for using 'bad language'."

I thought the same thing =)

To be honest, I have more trouble with reading such a poorly written piece of journalism than I can imagine anyone having with a bit of swearing.

"Hello!" Said Chris Hines, "I am Chris Hines." Hines stated. "As it happens, I have an opinion on this subject" Hines said when we met, "and I should like to share it." commented Chris Hines.

Aaah!

I suppose this means that I can't realllly criticise other people for being too darn uptight, heh.

nice irony.

however


he makes an interesting point, maybe the school shouldn't punish children for using "bad language". ;)

most recently here the same (okay similar) arguement was made that forced the highschool near me to change their prom theme from "James Bond Casino Royale" to something else because "if gambling is against school rules then why have a Casino theme prom?"

I can rationalize it this way, although I agree that they shouldn't ban "bad language" in school:
The bad language thing is because once you do something bad once, others tend to get the idea that they can do it, so you do it more because they're doing it, and it leads to lots of the bad behavior.
And if you think it's easy to keep other things up while one "rule" is being broken, you are quite wrong.
This problem, of course, doesn't exist in a book.

Does anyone really get punished for cursing at school anymore?

Heh, my usual talk on it goes: Look, it's not appropriate for the classroom, and it's not appropriate for the workplace. I'll be the first to admit I know AND USE those words elsewhere, but... you don't want them slipping out on an interview, so be aware of where you are and what you're saying."

Punish them? No. Not unless they are actively swearing at someone in a sustained manner.

Does anyone really get punished for cursing at school anymore?

A kid got suspended today for dropping the F-bomb in my math class today. Although it was directed towards a teacher.

most recently here the same (okay similar) arguement was made that forced the highschool near me to change their prom theme from "James Bond Casino Royale" to something else because "if gambling is against school rules then why have a Casino theme prom?"
They should immediately change it to the "James Bond Octopussy" prom. See how happy it makes them. :rolleyes:
Besides, isn't that what prom night really is all about?!?

the irony

*sizzles like a brand to the left buttock*






And personally, I'd rather not get a brand to the buttocks, thankyouverymuch.

For the love of God. It's a friggin' book! Why the hell ban it!? :rolleyes:

They should immediately change it to the "James Bond Octopussy" prom. See how happy it makes them. :rolleyes:
Besides, isn't that what prom night really is all about?!?

haha. no. prom here is about dressing up like a slut spending a bunch of money on crap, showing up home at 3am without the limo that picked you up, drunk and covered in vomit and then.......

nevermind. I have had a bad night.

For the love of God. It's a friggin' book! Why the hell ban it!? :rolleyes:

Because it has dangerous ideas about how censorship is BAD.

Because it has dangerous ideas about how censorship is BAD.
That’s twice this thread has made me want to punt a baby.

You know who's awesome? Erich Kaestner, a German poet and author of Children's books before the Second World War. When Goebbels presided over the first big book burning in Berlin out front of the Humboldt University, he made specific metion of Kaestners works as stuff that should be burned, alongside the works of Thomas Mann, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Bertolt Brecht and a few others. Erich Kaestner was in the crowd that day, watching what Goebbels was doing. He heard his name announced to the crowd as someone who's works were "destroying family values".

I cannot imagine what must have been going through his head that night, I really cannot.

A kid got suspended today for dropping the F-bomb in my math class today. Although it was directed towards a teacher.

That's more for disrespect and insuboordination than for the actual word.

references to the Bible and using God's name in vain. He said the book's material goes against their religions beliefs. The Verms go to Grand Parkway Church in Porter. Great they're one of Those.

I wonder if they want, Richard Peck's "The Last safe place on Earth" banned also.

(Which is about a group of Religious Fundementalists trying to ban books and brainwash people)

I'm surprised that the moron complaining didn't say he was against his daughter reading anything written by Michael Moore.

While we're on about book banning, here's the 100 most frequently challenged (as parents demanding that schools ban them) books, according to the American Library Association:
100 most frequently challenged books (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm)
Here's a few of the choicest ones:

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Witches by Roald Dahl
Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
Blubber by Judy Blume
We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain

Lord knows what a twisted, perverted, sick little shit one would become from reading this filth. Thank God there are still parents out there looking after our children, protecting them from the twin evils of free speech and independent thinking.

Does anyone really get punished for cursing at school anymore?

Yes. Frequently. Maybe not in some of the mega sized urban schools, but in most small and mid sized schools it's still a big offence to curse.

But back to the book, it shouldn't be banned due to "bad language" any more than Huck Finn should (for its copious use of the n word). Sadly, it happens. But it shouldn't.

The best bit of irony is when he's making the request.

Alton Verm's request to ban "Fahrenheit 451" came during the 25th annual Banned Books Week. He and Hines said the request to ban "Fahrenheit 451," a book about book burning, during Banned Books Weeks is a coincidence.
"Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read" is observed during the last week of September each year, according to the American Library Association Web site, www.ala.org. The week celebrates the freedom to choose or express one's opinion, even if it might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them, according to the Web site.

:p :p :p

We read LOF in ighschool.

People Also read:

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

and probably at least 25 more

at my highschool.

Side note: I'm suprised that 1984 isn't on there...

They :fluffle: in that book.

They should immediately change it to the "James Bond Octopussy" prom. See how happy it makes them. :rolleyes:
Besides, isn't that what prom night really is all about?!?Well, considering that the only "girl" to show up in "Octopussy" is a blue ringed octopus, there shouldn't be much trouble. Unless of course, you were talking about the movie... :p

Side note: I'm suprised that 1984 isn't on there...

They :fluffle: in that book.Maybe because they're only rebels from the waist down?

That’s twice this thread has made me want to punt a baby.
care to elaborate?
I'm surprised that the moron complaining didn't say he was against his daughter reading anything written by Michael Moore.

While we're on about book banning, here's the 100 most frequently challenged (as parents demanding that schools ban them) books, according to the American Library Association:
100 most frequently challenged books (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm)
I'm still trying to figure out how Where's Waldo is on that list...(number 88)

Yes. Frequently. Maybe not in some of the mega sized urban schools, but in most small and mid sized schools it's still a big offence to curse.

But back to the book, it shouldn't be banned due to "bad language" any more than Huck Finn should (for its copious use of the n word). Sadly, it happens. But it shouldn't.Within most Northern schools (at least those I have experience at/have friends who went to) swearing isn't a big deal...urban or rural

Maybe because they're only rebels from the waist down?
thats the worst kind. You can tell because it's also the most fun.:fluffle:

care to elaborate?
Just the way people have simplified the arguments of that father. I mean, has he really never look at the issue. How someone can be that idiotic is, frankly, mind boggling.

Just the way people have simplified the arguments of that father. I mean, has he really never look at the issue. How someone can be that idiotic is, frankly, mind boggling.
ahh...that's about what I figured...just wanted to make sure.

Sadly, this is nothing new - Fahrenheit 451 has not only been banned many times, it's even been printed (without Bradbury's permission) in special editions in which the "damns" and "hells" are removed. Ironic? You betcha.

I think my favorite part of this particular case, though, is right here:

He looked through the book and found the following things wrong with the book: discussion of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, "dirty talk," references to the Bible and using God's name in vain. He said the book's material goes against their religions beliefs. The Verms go to Grand Parkway Church in Porter.

I remember one significant reference to the Bible in Fahrenheit 451. You know what it is? It's the book the protagonist is freaking saving. Heaven forbid we teach our kids that the Bible is worth remembering and shouldn't be destroyed!

Nazz, you owe me a new irony meter. *hands him the smoking remains*

Nazz, you owe me a new irony meter. *hands him the smoking remains*
Here's a special "Right-wing Igno-matic" Irony Meter, guaranteed for an unintentional irony factor of +50. Top of the line. Made in Washington D.C. ;)

Am I the only shallow guy who has noticed how fat that girl is? :p

I'm still trying to figure out how Where's Waldo is on that list...(number 88)

I actually know. One of the Where's Waldo books had a beach scene and one person out of the thousands of them was a topless woman. Sort of anyway... She was face down and nothing was shown, but there was no strap or anything. That's why it's so bad.

Interestingly enough, there's others that have been on that list, including Garfield, probably every single version of the Bible(or any holy text) in existance, Dracula....hmm...that's all I remember at the moment. The reasoning with Garfield is because the cat is smarter than the human. Don't ask...I don't know why these people are so uptight about it...maybe they feel threatened by a fictional cat that is smarter than them?

Anyway, there's a lot of things out there that just seem...so innocent. Oh! I remember a good one. The Giving Tree. Why is it banned? Because the tree dies...

Wow. Just..... wow!

That is enough irony to kill the average man!

Wow. Just..... wow!

That is enough irony to kill the average man!

so we're all above average?!

YES!

*runs off to tell my parents*

so we're all above average?!

YES!

*runs off to tell my parents*

You have to be careful, though. It's only 10% below a lethal dose. ;)

You have to be careful, though. It's only 10% below a lethal dose. ;)

even with my tolerance?

even with my tolerance?

Well, you might be able to survive if you had an irony deficiency. :)

Well, you might be able to survive if you had an irony deficiency. :)

ironcially, I'm listening to Ironic by Alanis right now.


I feel ill all of a sudden:( Too much irony, perhaps?

The reasoning with Garfield is because the cat is smarter than the human. Don't ask...I don't know why these people are so uptight about it...maybe they feel threatened by a fictional cat that is smarter than them?

Well, a talking cat is obvious sign of witch craft. And the fact that Garfield's owner Jon isn't married at his age more than implies that he's gay.

Gay man with satanic cat.

Obvious case for banning.


What I can't understand is the rating of that 'frequently challenged list'.
Huck Finn is #5 and Of Mice and Men is #6, for example. Yet 'The New Joy of Gay Sex' is #28.
Can we thus infer that Puritans are more incensed and disgusted by a teacher assigning a John Steinbeck novel as required reading than they would of a 'Joy of Cottaging' book?

That does it. When I get out of the Navy, I'm moving my family to New Zealand. Or some other non-retarded English-speaking country.

Wait, is there one?

Am I the only shallow guy who has noticed how fat that girl is? :p

Nope. I noticed that too. Wasn't going to say anythign though.:D

That does it. When I get out of the Navy, I'm moving my family to New Zealand. Or some other non-retarded English-speaking country.

Wait, is there one?

Not on this planet.

Hmmm. Maybe I should learn another language, then. Or go into hiding in a bomb shelter à la "Blast from the Past."

Sometimes humans sadden me.

That’s twice this thread has made me want to punt a baby.

Hehehehe (http://home.maine.rr.com/waassaap/Forum%20Pictures/Random/owned8.gif)

I'm surprised that the moron complaining didn't say he was against his daughter reading anything written by Michael Moore.

While we're on about book banning, here's the 100 most frequently challenged (as parents demanding that schools ban them) books, according to the American Library Association:
100 most frequently challenged books (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm)
Here's a few of the choicest ones:

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Witches by Roald Dahl
Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
Blubber by Judy Blume
We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain

Lord knows what a twisted, perverted, sick little shit one would become from reading this filth. Thank God there are still parents out there looking after our children, protecting them from the twin evils of free speech and independent thinking.

Aw man, reading these ones and seing this explains how I turned out so sick and twisted :(

James and the Giant Peach?!

People really want to ban James and the Giant Peach? But. But... Why?

As ironic as the censorship of Farenheit 451 is I may hove found it's equal in burning irony. Apologies in advance that this adds nothing substantive to the thread and bears no relation to anything in thread except title and great burning irony. however if it helps just one person recognise irony it will be worth it.

http://www.northlineexpress.com/detail~PRODUCT_ID~5RU-3412.asp

As ironic as the censorship of Farenheit 451 is I may hove found it's equal in burning irony. Apologies in advance that this adds nothing substantive to the thread and bears no relation to anything in thread except title and great burning irony. however if it helps just one person recognise irony it will be worth it.

http://www.northlineexpress.com/detail~PRODUCT_ID~5RU-3412.asp

*Barfs all over MeansToAnEnd's computer*

Too much irony... *is ill*

Everyone, to New Zealand. ~Goes back to reading "120 days of Sodom"~

Wait till this guy reads Joyces 'Ulysses' or a little Sam Beckett. Ah who am I kidding.This guy probably couldn't handle 'Dennis the Menace'.

And you know the reporter loved using this joke (http://www.hcnonline.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1574&dept_id=532215&newsid=17270600).

Yep. A parent is pissed about Fahrenheit 451 being used in the classroom and wants it, you guessed it, banned from the class.

Better and better: if you dig a bit deeper in the story, you find out that the parent in question says that he hasn't even read the damn book. :P

James and the Giant Peach?!

People really want to ban James and the Giant Peach? But. But... Why?

Because people are dumb as rocks.

I mean, they want to ban Goosebumps for Christsakes. What the fuck is wrong with people?

James and the Giant Peach?!

People really want to ban James and the Giant Peach? But. But... Why?

I'm guessing it's because James's aunts get squished. I can vaguely sort of see how people might think that was excessively violent for a children's book.

I'm guessing it's because James's aunts get squished. I can vaguely sort of see how people might think that was excessively violent for a children's book.

Only after about a liter of vodka, I hope.

Am I the only one who noticed the fatso & daddy had no reservations about the bible?

On a semi related note; there's no such thing as "bad" language or "bad" words. One of the reason we educate our children is to teach them appropriate use of language, including teaching them that some people do indeed say "FUCK!" & the like.

That the daddy in question has been unable to properly feed his daughter & teach her that being offended by real or fictional people's use of the language, is not the school's problem. It's job is to educate, not to raise children.

Finally, if we're to ban anything, I say we ban people who wants to ban things. It's by far the easiest way to go about it. Especially now that American citizens can be husked away to a deep dark hole for being "subversives".

EDIT: Obviously the education system failed me :(

I... I don't really know what to say...(*brain grinding...too fast...indicators going red...*)...it's just...too....(*hyperspeed scan of vocabulary for adjectives...goddammit!! there's not a single appropriate word that dumbfuck son of a bitch wouldn't ban!*)...it's just too perfect. Yeah. Perfect.

Sigh.....

Thanks, Nazz. I'm going to go outside for a while...and try not to shoot anybody.

"It's just all kinds of filth," said Alton Verm, adding that he had not read "Fahrenheit 451."

What a tool. He clearly wouldn't understand irony if it bit him on the bum. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing it's because James's aunts get squished. I can vaguely sort of see how people might think that was excessively violent for a children's book.

But they dont want to ban Grimm Fairy tales, do they?

Like Rapunzel, wherein the Prince falls off the tower, and pierces his eyes out on the thorns below, or Hans Christian Andersen stories where the Little Mermaid dies in the end and becomes seafoam.

They pick-and choose wich novels to launch thier shit at.

Catcher in the Rye becuase it speaks of societal dissassociation, or Huckleberry Finn, because of its racial slander, or anything else that doesnt fit into thier perception of what is acceptable and what isnt.

But they dont want to ban Grimm Fairy tales, do they?

Like Rapunzel, wherein the Prince falls off the tower, and pierces his eyes out on the thorns below, or Hans Christian Andersen stories where the Little Mermaid dies in the end and becomes seafoam.

They pick-and choose wich novels to launch thier shit at.

Catcher in the Rye becuase it speaks of societal dissassociation, or Huckleberry Finn, because of its racial slander, or anything else that doesnt fit into thier perception of what is acceptable and what isnt.

And why? Because they either don't analyze or overanalyze the books (the former being a problem they've had with the world's biggest seller :eek: ).

But they dont want to ban Grimm Fairy tales, do they?

Like Rapunzel, wherein the Prince falls off the tower, and pierces his eyes out on the thorns below, or Hans Christian Andersen stories where the Little Mermaid dies in the end and becomes seafoam.

They don't want to ban them, cause they haven't read them in their original form. Just bought up with the heavily sanitised and saccharine-sweet Disney versions.

The original Grimm bros Cinderella, for eg, had it when the 1st wicked stepsister tried the shoe, her toes were too big. The evil step-mom took her aside and told her that when she is Queen, she won't need toes as she'll be carried everywhere - and then proceeds to hack step-sister #1's toes off.
The prince (dumb fuck that he is) believes she is Cinderella, and leaves with her. Two crows fly down and tell him to look at the shoe and see the blood therein.
Prince goes back, step-sister #2 heel is too big. Step-mom presents the same argument etc etc, heel hacked off, crows warn Prince, finally he finds Cinderella.
Not the end of the gruesomeness, though.
At the wedding, the two crows peck the step-sisters eyes out, and for the after-function entertainment the step-mum is made to dance in red-hot lead shoes until she dies.

Just the sort of wholesome entertainment to read to one's child at bedtime. :)

Unbelievable. Does the parent also want the book to be publicly burned?

But what about all the sex and violence in the bible. Ought to be kept away from impressionable young minds if you ask me.

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches;11764342]

They pick-and choose wich novels to launch thier shit at.

Catcher in the Rye becuase it speaks of societal dissassociation,QUOTE]

It used to be taught in a special way because the word "fuck" was used rather than as you describe. They sent notes home to parents with an overview of the safety procedures employed so that no students mind was harmed by the reading of the word "fuck" They made no safety claims for the "God Damns " though.

Compare this to a mate of mine in NZ who is a senior English teacher. A few years ago, he had his year13 class (so 17/18 yr-olds) read TOOL's 'Ænema' lyrics as an example of modern poetry.
Outcry by parents? not a peep.

For those of you heathens who don't know the song (for shame! for shame!), here it is:

Ænema
Some say the end is near
Some say we'll see armageddon soon
I certainly hope we will
I sure could use a vacation from this
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow...
Of freaks here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away
Any fucking time, any fucking day
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay
Fret for your figure and
Fret for your latte and
Fret for your hairpiece and
Fret for your lawsuit and
Fret for your prozac and
Fret for your pilot and
Fret for your contract and
Fret for your car
It's a Bullshit three ring circus sideshow...
Of freaks here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away
Any fucking time, any fucking day
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay
Some say a comet will fall from the sky
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.
Some say the end is near
Some say we'll see armageddon soon
I certainly hope we will cuz
I sure could use a vacation from this
Silly shit, stupid shit...
One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied
Learn to swim
Mom's gonna fix it all soon
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be
Learn to swim
Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
Fuck all his clones
Fuck all those gun-toting
Hip gangster wannabes
Learn to swim
Fuck retro anything
Fuck your tattoos
Fuck all you junkies and
Fuck your short memory
Learn to swim
Fuck smiley glad-hands
With hidden agendas
Fuck these dysfunctional,
Insecure actresses
Learn to swim
Cuz I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way
I wanna watch it all go down
Mom please flush it all away
I wanna watch it go right in and down
I wanna watch it go right in
Watch you flush it all away
Time to bring it down again
Don't just call me pessimist
Try and read between the lines
I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend
I wanna see it all come down
Suck it down
Flush it down

They don't want to ban them, cause they haven't read them in their original form. Just bought up with the heavily sanitised and saccharine-sweet Disney versions.

The original Grimm bros Cinderella, for eg, had it when the 1st wicked stepsister tried the shoe, her toes were too big. The evil step-mom took her aside and told her that when she is Queen, she won't need toes as she'll be carried everywhere - and then proceeds to hack step-sister #1's toes off.
The prince (dumb fuck that he is) believes she is Cinderella, and leaves with her. Two crows fly down and tell him to look at the shoe and see the blood therein.
Prince goes back, step-sister #2 heel is too big. Step-mom presents the same argument etc etc, heel hacked off, crows warn Prince, finally he finds Cinderella.
Not the end of the gruesomeness, though.
At the wedding, the two crows peck the step-sisters eyes out, and for the after-function entertainment the step-mum is made to dance in red-hot lead shoes until she dies.

Just the sort of wholesome entertainment to read to one's child at bedtime. :)
That can't be right. Lead melts before it gets hot enough to glow.

That can't be right. Lead melts before it gets hot enough to glow.
Well, perhaps they were iron then.

Wait...we're arguing chemistry over a bloody fairy story!

Has NS come to this?

Well, perhaps they were iron then.

Wait...we're arguing chemistry over a bloody fairy story!

Has NS come to this?

Come to this? It's always been this.

Well, perhaps they were iron then.

Wait...we're arguing chemistry over a bloody fairy story!

Has NS come to this?
In Anne Sexton's poem about Snow White (http://plagiarist.com/poetry/?wid=597), they were iron shoes. The poem follows the original story much more closely than Disney did.

Edit: Doh! I just realized you were talking about Cinderella, not Snow White. But the iron shoes triggered the memory of the Sexton poem for me.

They don't want to ban them, cause they haven't read them in their original form. Just bought up with the heavily sanitised and saccharine-sweet Disney versions.

The original Grimm bros Cinderella, for eg, had it when the 1st wicked stepsister tried the shoe, her toes were too big. The evil step-mom took her aside and told her that when she is Queen, she won't need toes as she'll be carried everywhere - and then proceeds to hack step-sister #1's toes off.
The prince (dumb fuck that he is) believes she is Cinderella, and leaves with her. Two crows fly down and tell him to look at the shoe and see the blood therein.
Prince goes back, step-sister #2 heel is too big. Step-mom presents the same argument etc etc, heel hacked off, crows warn Prince, finally he finds Cinderella.
Not the end of the gruesomeness, though.
At the wedding, the two crows peck the step-sisters eyes out, and for the after-function entertainment the step-mum is made to dance in red-hot lead shoes until she dies.

Just the sort of wholesome entertainment to read to one's child at bedtime. :)
really, you can't accuse Disney of changing it any more than any other group...the Grimm brothers didn't even author Cinderella. They were linguists who went out and wrote down the folk tales of Europe to study the language changes. There are more that 350 written versions of Cinderella, not to mention the thousands of variations created when you use it as a bedtime story.

I also think that is unwise and ironic to ban this book from being used in class, however, I also think that the administration should probably look into the way that the book is being used. I have not read the book although I have watched the movie. I believe that although the movie brought up good points it did so through misinformation and propaganda. Whatever your opinion, it is obvious that the book is not set in stone fact but that it is unproven opinion. Therefore the book should not be taught as such. I think it would do well to look into the use of the book for such a reason.

I also think that is unwise and ironic to ban this book from being used in class, however, I also think that the administration should probably look into the way that the book is being used. I have not read the book although I have watched the movie. I believe that although the movie brought up good points it did so through misinformation and propaganda. Whatever your opinion, it is obvious that the book is not set in stone fact but that it is unproven opinion. Therefore the book should not be taught as such. I think it would do well to look into the use of the book for such a reason.

It is indeed obvious that the book is not "stone fact." This might possibly be because it is a novel. It says so right on the cover. I'm pretty sure no one was planning on teaching it as fact, seeing as, you know, it's a novel.

It is indeed obvious that the book is not "stone fact." This might possibly be because it is a novel. It says so right on the cover. I'm pretty sure no one was planning on teaching it as fact, seeing as, you know, it's a novel.

Ah, you beat me to it. I'd like to just add:

Originally Posted by Fengzhuozi
I also think that is unwise and ironic to ban this book from being used in class, however, I also think that the administration should probably look into the way that the book is being used. I have not read the book although I have watched the movie. I believe that although the movie brought up good points it did so through misinformation and propaganda. Whatever your opinion, it is obvious that the book is not set in stone fact but that it is unproven opinion. Therefore the book should not be taught as such. I think it would do well to look into the use of the book for such a reason.
1) Fiction =/= opinion. An author can have an opinion, and he may use fiction as a means to express it, but fiction is the name of an artform. It itself is not an opinion, any more than sculpture or dance are "opinion." Thus, although the author's opinions are apparent in Fahrenheit 451, the book itself is not an opinion, and it is subject to any interpretation the reader cares to apply to it, using opinions of his own.

2) There is no such thing as an "unproven opinion" for the same reason there is no such thing as a "proven opinion." Opinion =/= fact, therefore it is not subject to proof as if it were a fact.

It is indeed obvious that the book is not "stone fact." This might possibly be because it is a novel. It says so right on the cover. I'm pretty sure no one was planning on teaching it as fact, seeing as, you know, it's a novel.

I am glad that you know exactly how the teacher was planning on using the book. In all honesty, I know teachers who would use it as propaganda. Just as people on the right would use some books as propaganda. This is why I said that the administration should probably look into the use of the book to make sure that students are getting an unbiased look at events. Or as close to unbiased as possible.

Ah, you beat me to it. I'd like to just add:


1) Fiction =/= opinion. An author can have an opinion, and he may use fiction as a means to express it, but fiction is the name of an artform. It itself is not an opinion, any more than sculpture or dance are "opinion." Thus, although the author's opinions are apparent in Fahrenheit 451, the book itself is not an opinion, and it is subject to any interpretation the reader cares to apply to it, using opinions of his own.

2) There is no such thing as an "unproven opinion" for the same reason there is no such thing as a "proven opinion." Opinion =/= fact, therefore it is not subject to proof as if it were a fact.

Ok, fine, lets play the semantics game so that you can pleasure yourself.
1) Fiction and opinion are as you have said, two different things. That does not make them opposing things. The Micheal Moore does indeed give his opinion, if the book is anything like the film. This is called an editorial...not fiction. Therefore, no matter what the book says, if the author gives incidents as facts and then gives opinion, then it is an editorial. If it uses fiction and then gives opinion, then it is a ridiculously poorly written editorial.

2) You are incorrect that there is no such thing as an "unproven opinion". My statement was redundant, but still correct. Every opinion is by nature unproven since an opinion is "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." You seem to think that because opinion hasn't been proven that we should not ask for proof. This is an obviously foolhardy belief...of course that is my opinion, so if you disagree, you are wrong, but cannot ask for proof.

Now, if you feel better about making me waste my time to discuss semantics, then we can proceed to address the subject at hand.

Ok, fine, lets play the semantics game so that you can pleasure yourself.
<SNIP>

Now, if you feel better about making me waste my time to discuss semantics, then we can proceed to address the subject at hand.


I just wanted to help waste time by noting how uncannily well your opening and closing sentences make the whole thing come together.

1) Fiction and opinion are as you have said, two different things. That does not make them opposing things. The Micheal Moore does indeed give his opinion, if the book is anything like the film. This is called an editorial...not fiction. Therefore, no matter what the book says, if the author gives incidents as facts and then gives opinion, then it is an editorial. If it uses fiction and then gives opinion, then it is a ridiculously poorly written editorial.

At first I was totally baffled as to why you were talking about Michael Moore. Then I realized that you actually do not know the difference between the science fiction novel Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, and the documentary movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

That juice which came out of my nose when I was laughing kind of hurt, I'll have you know.

Ok, fine, lets play the semantics game so that you can pleasure yourself.
1) Fiction and opinion are as you have said, two different things. That does not make them opposing things. The Micheal Moore does indeed give his opinion, if the book is anything like the film. This is called an editorial...not fiction. Therefore, no matter what the book says, if the author gives incidents as facts and then gives opinion, then it is an editorial. If it uses fiction and then gives opinion, then it is a ridiculously poorly written editorial.

2) You are incorrect that there is no such thing as an "unproven opinion". My statement was redundant, but still correct. Every opinion is by nature unproven since an opinion is "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." You seem to think that because opinion hasn't been proven that we should not ask for proof. This is an obviously foolhardy belief...of course that is my opinion, so if you disagree, you are wrong, but cannot ask for proof.

Now, if you feel better about making me waste my time to discuss semantics, then we can proceed to address the subject at hand.
You're thinking of Farenheit 911, this is a Ray Bradbury book called Farenheit 451. A very different thing. :)

You ever feel really small...yeah, that would be now.

So I guess that I didn't read it that way because why in hell would anyone do that to Farenheit 451. It was beyond me that they would do that so I guess I just read in a book that I could see conceivably being banned. That said.

I am sorry to the throats that I must now unlodge myself from. Forgive me.

I am glad that you know exactly how the teacher was planning on using the book. In all honesty, I know teachers who would use it as propaganda. Just as people on the right would use some books as propaganda. This is why I said that the administration should probably look into the use of the book to make sure that students are getting an unbiased look at events. Or as close to unbiased as possible.

There are no "events" in Fahrenheit 451 for students to get an unbiased look at because the book is fiction. Nothing in it ever really happened.

Here's a story for you. This did really happen. (I've told this story before, so apologies to anyone who already knows it.) It's about an experiment in bias.

I'm an artist. Three or so years ago, starting on Banned Books Week and commemorating the big Nazi book burning party in the 1930s, there was a regional arts festival celebrating books and addressing issues of censorship. One of the participating galleries here in Massachusetts had a show of artists books, i.e. books made by artists. The call was for new or existing works relating to a theme of censorship. I contributed a new work that I made for the show.

To make the artwork, I asked myself, "What makes people want to ban a book?" How is it that two people can read, say, Fahrenheit 451 and each come away with radically different ideas of what it's about and, even what's in it? They read the same book but seem to be talking about completely different ones.

I decided that the disconnect is obviously in the readers' minds, so I tested my own reading skills by reading a book. I chose a book about medicine because it is arguably the world's most controversial subject. I found at a used books store a 1927 book called The Human Body by a Dr. Logan Clendenning, who turned out to be quite a writer.

As I read, I copied down every single word, sentence and paragraph that particularly struck me for any reason. I wrote them on a pad in the order I read them. When I was done, I read what I had copied down in its entirety.

I was amazed to find that I had written down a coherent narrative that had a beginning, middle and end, and a very clear voice and very clear opinions, and was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE BOOK I HAD BEEN READING. It wasn't even about medicine. It was as if I had been looking at Dr. Clendenning's book but reading a book that existed inside my own head. Yet every word of it was from Clendenning's book.

I made my artist book out of that excerpted text with collage illustrations and exhibited both my book and the original book side by side for people to compare.

This clearly offers a glimpse into how it happens that different people have such wildly different experiences of the same books.

Now take that disconnect and magnify by second-hand and third-hand reports of books. Remember, the guy wanting to ban Fahrenheit 451 has never read it. He only knows what other people, who have their own biases, have told him about it, and he puts those biased reports through the prism of his own biases, and so it goes, getting more and more distorted, like a game of "telephone."

Ok, fine, lets play the semantics game so that you can pleasure yourself.
1) Fiction and opinion are as you have said, two different things. That does not make them opposing things. The Micheal Moore does indeed give his opinion, if the book is anything like the film. This is called an editorial...not fiction. Therefore, no matter what the book says, if the author gives incidents as facts and then gives opinion, then it is an editorial. If it uses fiction and then gives opinion, then it is a ridiculously poorly written editorial.

2) You are incorrect that there is no such thing as an "unproven opinion". My statement was redundant, but still correct. Every opinion is by nature unproven since an opinion is "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." You seem to think that because opinion hasn't been proven that we should not ask for proof. This is an obviously foolhardy belief...of course that is my opinion, so if you disagree, you are wrong, but cannot ask for proof.

Now, if you feel better about making me waste my time to discuss semantics, then we can proceed to address the subject at hand.
As has been pointed out, Micheal Moore made a movie called Fahrenheit 911.

Fahrenheit 451 is a book by Ray Bradbury.

Get your facts straight, and then we can argue about opinion and semantics.

EDIT: It seems that, like the father in the news article, you haven't read the book, either, have you?

You ever feel really small...yeah, that would be now.

So I guess that I didn't read it that way because why in hell would anyone do that to Farenheit 451. It was beyond me that they would do that so I guess I just read in a book that I could see conceivably being banned. That said.

I am sorry to the throats that I must now unlodge myself from. Forgive me.

I'll not only forgive you, I'll give you a little pat on the head, too. :D

PS: "Fahrenheit 911" by Michael Moore is a movie, not a book.

As has been pointed out, Micheal Moore made a movie called Fahrenheit 911.

Fahrenheit 451 is a book by Ray Bradbury.

Get your facts straight, and then we can argue about opinion and semantics.

EDIT: It seems that, like the father in the news article, you haven't read the book, either, have you?

Or the article. ;)

You're thinking of Farenheit 911, this is a Ray Bradbury book called Farenheit 451. A very different thing. :)

Legitimate argument for censorship number 17: Michael Moore's continuing refusal to stop half plaigerising snappy titles from the works of others in order to name his crappy docuganda fillums.:D ;)

My only mistake was in misreading the name of the book. I thought that maybe Moore had made a companion book to the movie.

I have read Farenheit 451 and understand the irony. Sorry for the mix up once again.

Or the article. ;)

Nor even the movie. :D

My only mistake was in misreading the name of the book. I thought that maybe Moore had made a companion book to the movie.

I have read Farenheit 451 and understand the irony. Sorry for the mix up once again.

Ah, but it was such a beautiful mistake. Truly, this thread is all about irony.

While we're on about book banning, here's the 100 most frequently challenged (as parents demanding that schools ban them) books, according to the American Library Association:
100 most frequently challenged books (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm)
Here's a few of the choicest ones:
...
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
...
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
...
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain


I have read the above three and I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to ban these books.:confused:

You ever feel really small...yeah, that would be now.

So I guess that I didn't read it that way because why in hell would anyone do that to Farenheit 451. It was beyond me that they would do that so I guess I just read in a book that I could see conceivably being banned. That said.

I am sorry to the throats that I must now unlodge myself from. Forgive me.

Heh. Consider yourself forgiven. :)

For future reference, the sort of people who want to ban books are generally not the sort of people who have sensible reasons for doing so, so trying to ascribe logical motives to them usually won't work. People are, in fact, pretty colossally dumb an awful lot of the time. Check out the list of frequently banned books earlier in this thread to see what I mean.

My only mistake was in misreading the name of the book. I thought that maybe Moore had made a companion book to the movie.

I have read Farenheit 451 and understand the irony. Sorry for the mix up once again.

Ill have you know that your faux pas has caused me to imagine a morphed being which is 1/2 Bradbury and 3/4 Moore (because of the additional tonnage of Moore). I have probably just caused the self inflicted death of at least 500 brain cells. Maybe a shower followed by a Tequila binge might help.

I'm surprised that the moron complaining didn't say he was against his daughter reading anything written by Michael Moore.

While we're on about book banning, here's the 100 most frequently challenged (as parents demanding that schools ban them) books, according to the American Library Association:
100 most frequently challenged books (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm)
Here's a few of the choicest ones:

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Witches by Roald Dahl
Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
Blubber by Judy Blume
We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain

Lord knows what a twisted, perverted, sick little shit one would become from reading this filth. Thank God there are still parents out there looking after our children, protecting them from the twin evils of free speech and independent thinking.

Most of the books I've been assigned to read at school last year were on that list...
Does that say something about my old school? :rolleyes:

I have read the above three and I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to ban these books.:confused:

I can tell you one of the most cited reasons for banning Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, at least. They contain the word "******." Clearly, this makes them racist. Right? :rolleyes:

Ah, but it was such a beautiful mistake. Truly, this thread is all about irony.

Indeed it was. I am glad that I can laugh at myself, because that was a dumb one. Well, I do think that they are idiots for wanting to ban this book.

I have read the above three and I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to ban these books.:confused:

The 2 Huckleberry Finn ones are considered racist...
The other one, I can't remember what To Kill A Mockingbird is about. Care to enlighten me?

Look on Wikipedia for a 'Banned Books', it's quite a long list...

The 2 Huckleberry Finn ones are considered racist...

I think I may have read abridged versions at school, so I may have missed out on the "racist" parts...but I have read about Mark Twain and I don't think he is particularly racist (atleast when compared to his times) and I fail to see why we should be deprived of his books because it reflected the times he lived in.

The other one, I can't remember what To Kill A Mockingbird is about. Care to enlighten me?


A black man accused of raping a white woman in a small town and a white lawyer defends him. It came as a movie too starring Gregory Peck.

The 2 Huckleberry Finn ones are considered racist...
The other one, I can't remember what To Kill A Mockingbird is about. Care to enlighten me?

Look on Wikipedia for a 'Banned Books', it's quite a long list...

To Kill a Mockingbird (which I highly recommend reading - it's considered a classic for a reason) is about a pair of Alabama children whose father, a lawyer, is defending a black man against false charges of rape. Unsurprisingly, a few of the unsympathetic characters in this book call black people "niggers." Hence, banned.

People = dumb.

I also think that is unwise and ironic to ban this book from being used in class, however, I also think that the administration should probably look into the way that the book is being used. I have not read the book although I have watched the movie. I believe that although the movie brought up good points it did so through misinformation and propaganda. Whatever your opinion, it is obvious that the book is not set in stone fact but that it is unproven opinion. Therefore the book should not be taught as such. I think it would do well to look into the use of the book for such a reason.

The movie, to be blunt, is crap. (and I am talking about Fahrenheit 451, not Fahrenheit 9/11.)

As for Twain, banning Huck Finn for being racist is asinine. The whole thing is how this white kid, Huck, realizes that the runaway slave, Jim, whom he has been treating as property/a dumb child, is actually a human being and that he's going to help Jim escape even if he's damned to hell for it.

Yeah, real racist.

I have read the above three and I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to ban these books.:confused:
I heartily recommend you read all the books that I highlighted, not just those three.
If nothing else it'll make you as twisted and perverted as the rest of us.

Banning books is one of the most idiotic things that is currently practiced in America (besides ID, American Idol, Atkins diet, and a lot of other things). For one thing, they almost ONLY ban good books. Stupid, inconsequential, boring, sappy crap is never banned. But if it has any insights into things like the dark side of people's personalities, the flaws in society, or (God forbid!) race, religion, class, or sexuality, some righteous son-of-a-bitch is up there on his stump screaming about how we can't allow our children to read books like Fahrenheit 451 because they might get some crazy ideas into their heads about how books are good and shouldn't be banned.

As for Twain, banning Huck Finn for being racist is asinine. The whole thing is how this white kid, Huck, realizes that the runaway slave, Jim, whom he has been treating as property/a dumb child, is actually a human being and that he's going to help Jim escape even if he's damned to hell for it.

Yeah, real racist.

Ahh..but you have the benefit of having read the book.

Thus, you can make an educated opinion as to its racial content.

Now, imagine yourself a hysterical parent, whos kid you just caught calling his buddy Jim, a "******", like Huck's buddy "****** Jim".

It seems aside from educating your students these days, the schools are also responsible for raising them as well, and CLEARLY, your child is picking up this horrible language at school, becuase he CERTAINLY isnt learning it at home!

Hell, even in Tom Sawyer, the bad guys name was a racial slur.
"Injun Joe".

BAN THAT TOO!

Now you see how this gets going.

Uptight, unread parents, who are WAY too overprotective of "little Billy and Susie", and attempt to remove "dangerous literature" to shelter them.

The movie, to be blunt, is crap. (and I am talking about Fahrenheit 451, not Fahrenheit 9/11.)
I forgot that there was a movie version of Fahrenheit 451. In fact, I think I forgot about it while I was watching it. Mmmm... snoozy...

As for Twain, banning Huck Finn for being racist is asinine. The whole thing is how this white kid, Huck, realizes that the runaway slave, Jim, whom he has been treating as property/a dumb child, is actually a human being and that he's going to help Jim escape even if he's damned to hell for it.

Yeah, real racist.

My favorite thing about Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird is that they have been banned at various times by BOTH racists and anti-racists. Dumbasses who are racist complain that these books give segregation a bad name and encourage race mixing. Dumbasses who are against racism complain that they use racist language. Neither set of dumbasses has ever actually read the books and have no idea what they are about.

Just on the news last night. Parents insisting the school ban Harry Potter. Again.

Does anyone really get punished for cursing at school anymore?

The high school actually has time to punish kids for using "bad" language?

o_O

This must be a GREAT place to live[/actually being sincere]

I'm suprised by this, I have been told off for using bad language in school all my life, and I don't go to a strict southern American school. Why is it a bad thing to tell off people who are being rude by using offensive terms designed only for the purpose to offend people?

I can tell you one of the most cited reasons for banning Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, at least. They contain the word "******." Clearly, this makes them racist. Right? :rolleyes:

The 2 Huckleberry Finn ones are considered racist...
The other one, I can't remember what To Kill A Mockingbird is about. Care to enlighten me?

Look on Wikipedia for a 'Banned Books', it's quite a long list...

Actually, Huck Finn gets put on the list more often because it would make children want to run away from home (no...seriously. That is the usual justification. Makes about as much sense as Harry Potter making kids satanists, don't it?)

as for To Kill A Mockingbird, I think that one is due to racism, but I don't really remember.

I'm surprised God's Little Acre isn't on the list...that one was hugely banned for a very long time throughout the entire country...

Alton Verm's request to ban "Fahrenheit 451" came during the 25th annual Banned Books Week. He and Hines said the request to ban "Fahrenheit 451," a book about book burning, during Banned Books Weeks is a coincidence.

I didn't read nall 8 pages of the thread, but I did notice this tidbit in the article.