NationStates Jolt Archive

Today I found Farenheit 451 in my school's library, and checked it out. I knew it was banned in other places and had assumed it would be banned in my county, but it was there in the high school library so I checked it out. Reading it, I wondered why it was ever banned.

Does anyone find it ironic that a book about censorship and burning books was banned? :p

The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are banned books, I think...

Obviously, if somene is a proponent of banning certain books, he would ban a book whose whole thesis contradicts his ideals.

The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are banned books, I think...

where? they're freely available where i live. in both places i live.

Fortunately, our libraries usually ignore the book banning nuts.

The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are banned books, I think...

I can see Mein Kampf being banned, as, although it has useful historical purposes, it's pretty darn inflammatory, but the Communist Manifesto? I've never read it, so is there something horribly offensive in it I don't know about?

The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are banned books, I think...
Not where I live.

where? they're freely available where i live. in both places i live.

Well, just because they're banned doesn't mean you can't get them. I think it has somewhat to do with schools...

I can see Mein Kampf being banned, as, although it has useful historical purposes, it's pretty darn inflammatory, but the Communist Manifesto? I've never read it, so is there something horribly offensive in it I don't know about?

It might not be banned anymore, but I'm certain it was banned in the U.S. during the Cold War.

It might not be banned anymore, but I'm certain it was banned in the U.S. during the Cold War.

land of the free ftw :l

"Mein Kampf" is banned in Germany and Austria. Banned doesn't mean that it's illegal to own or to read it, it's simply illegal to sell, and libraryies are only allowed to give it out if there is some valid academic interest.

Other than that, I know of no banned books. Certainly not the Communist manifesto or Farenheit 451... I never heard of any place in the world having banned those.

land of the free ftw :l

I guess you could look at it this way, though: we were still millions of times freer than the Soviet people.

Mein Kampf, and The Communist Manifesto aren't banned here. Hell, Marx's book was actually on our 10th grade reading list/

It's apparently a disputed article, but still :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books

I can see Mein Kampf being banned, as, although it has useful historical purposes, it's pretty darn inflammatory, but the Communist Manifesto? I've never read it, so is there something horribly offensive in it I don't know about?

If you take it seriously, it poses some serious risk to the owners of the means of production. But I don't think that the Communist Manifesto has ever been banned here in the states. In Europe, surely, but not here, and not since the fall of the Soviet Union.

I guess you could look at it this way, though: we were still millions of times freer than the Soviet people.

But only half as free as, say, the French at the same time ;)

Today I found Farenheit 451 in my school's library, and checked it out. I knew it was banned in other places and had assumed it would be banned in my county, but it was there in the high school library so I checked it out. Reading it, I wondered why it was ever banned.

Does anyone find it ironic that a book about censorship and burning books was banned? :p

I find it very ironic. And there's little in it that could be considered worth banning really.... OMG, READ! Educate yourself rather than sit in front of the TV and become a mindless consumer!!!

Oh, wait, maybe THAT's why it's banned -- fewer couch potatoes = fewer profits for tv producers and instant meals! ;)

If you take it seriously, it poses some serious risk to the owners of the means of production. But I don't think that the Communist Manifesto has ever been banned here in the states. In Europe, surely, but not here, and not since the fall of the Soviet Union.

I can't recall it being banned either, at least not in my lifetime.

If you take it seriously, it poses some serious risk to the owners of the means of production. But I don't think that the Communist Manifesto has ever been banned here in the states. In Europe, surely, but not here, and not since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Nope, it's never been banned in any European nation. However, both Wiki and Amazon claim that it has in fact been banned in the USA for a while.

http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Manifesto-Important-Political-Document/dp/1931859256

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books

Well, just because they're banned doesn't mean you can't get them. I think it has somewhat to do with schools...

Well, most books are banned school by school, by the school board. There isn't, as far as I know of, any laws which ban books, but just parents getting all uppity and complaining to the school board about how a certain book is profane, and corrupting the children.

He's referring to banned books in school libraries, I believe.

Common ones banned:

1984
F451
Catch 22
Communist Manifesto(The longest, most boring, most droling piece of literature you may ever read)
Mein Kampf
Most books by Samuel Clemens(AKA Mark Twain)
Origin of Species(Yes, there are some places which still ban this book)

etc, etc.

Seriously, there are idiots in my state trying to ban the Harry Potter books from school libraries.

Is it really surprising that many school libraries have banned Farenheit 451? Catcher in the Rye? etc.

I don't know how accurate this list is, but I'm sad to say that none of it surprises me:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

Interesting that # What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras is at number 40 while the corresponding boys book is at number 61.

Of course, Are you there God, it's me, Margaret is at #62. It's a JUDY BLUME book for crying out loud!

iam trying to read all the banned books,iam a good way through the list, thoses books are actualy some of the better books that i have ever read

But only half as free as, say, the French at the same time ;)

They had it damn good during that period...the Trente Glorieuses were beyond a doubt the most stable and prosperous decades in French history. (Sadly, the 1973 oil embargo brought that to an end, but they still got a generation of prosperity out of it...)

I can't imagine why anyone would ban Fahrenheit 451. I also highly recommend the film - directed by Francois Truffaut.

I have a copy of the Communist Manifesto. It was a university textbook.

1984

That's weird... it's on the required reading for my school.

F451

Same with this one...

Catch 22

What the hell? Is it because it mocks the army?

Origin of Species(Yes, there are some places which still ban this book)

LAWL

Nope, it's never been banned in any European nation. However, both Wiki and Amazon claim that it has in fact been banned in the USA for a while.

http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Manifesto-Important-Political-Document/dp/1931859256

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books

I'm seeing a Citation Needed tag on the part about TCM being banned.

The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are banned books, I think...

Not where I live. In the US, Mein Kampf isnt banned. I attempted reading it once.

Of course, Are you there God, it's me, Margaret is at #62. It's a JUDY BLUME book for crying out loud!
Well, it is about masturbation. And it's aimed at children.

Seriously, there are idiots in my state trying to ban the Harry Potter books from school libraries.


What state?

Seriously, there are idiots in my state trying to ban the Harry Potter books from school libraries.

Is it really surprising that many school libraries have banned Farenheit 451? Catcher in the Rye? etc.

I don't know how accurate this list is, but I'm sad to say that none of it surprises me:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

Interesting that # What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras is at number 40 while the corresponding boys book is at number 61.

Of course, Are you there God, it's me, Margaret is at #62. It's a JUDY BLUME book for crying out loud!


There are some very, VERY good books on that list, some of the by Nobel laureates... I'd be curious to know the reasons why they were banned. I'm sure there are some interesting stories of frustrating stupidity involved.

Seriously, there are idiots in my state trying to ban the Harry Potter books from school libraries.

Is it really surprising that many school libraries have banned Farenheit 451? Catcher in the Rye? etc.

I don't know how accurate this list is, but I'm sad to say that none of it surprises me:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

Interesting that # What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras is at number 40 while the corresponding boys book is at number 61.

Of course, Are you there God, it's me, Margaret is at #62. It's a JUDY BLUME book for crying out loud!

Heavens above!

A Shell Silverstein book is on that list!

*Bloodpressure skyrockets*

I'm seeing a Citation Needed tag on the part about TCM being banned.

I'm still trying to find another source on that...

Today I found Farenheit 451 in my school's library, and checked it out. I knew it was banned in other places and had assumed it would be banned in my county, but it was there in the high school library so I checked it out. Reading it, I wondered why it was ever banned.

Does anyone find it ironic that a book about censorship and burning books was banned? :p

is there sex in it? i read it more than 30 years ago so i cant remember.

quite a few books are banned from schools because parents dont want their kids to find out why married people dont sleep in seperate beds.

There are some very, VERY good books on that list, some of the by Nobel laureates... I'd be curious to know the reasons why they were banned. I'm sure there are some interesting stories of frustrating stupidity involved.

wiki gives some reasons here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books)

most of the time its people that feel threatoned by inteligence and the truth

is there sex in it? i read it more than 30 years ago so i cant remember.

quite a few books are banned from schools because parents dont want their kids to find out why married people dont sleep in seperate beds.

No sex in it at all. Hardly any swearing except for the occasional "Hell" and "dammit". A few people die.

A Harry Potter book is more ban-worthy than F451.

Well, it is about masturbation. And it's aimed at children.

Um...no, it isn't. It's about a young girl and her friends who are a the beginning of puberty. It's about Margaret's confusion over religion, over boys, over the changes in her body, and over her parent's divorce. I've read it quite a few times and I don't remember even a passing refernce to masturbation (not that it would be a problem if it were there).



Seriously, there are idiots in my state trying to ban the Harry Potter books from school libraries.

What state?

Georgia. I believe the last time they tried, it got shot down. It apparently seems to have creeped up again. Apparently, anything to do with magic is actually about worshipping the devil. That is, unless, of course, it's The Chronicles of Narnia, which are ok since they're really about Jesus. :rolleyes:


There are some very, VERY good books on that list, some of the by Nobel laureates... I'd be curious to know the reasons why they were banned. I'm sure there are some interesting stories of frustrating stupidity involved.

All sorts of reasons. Some are banned/challenged because, during the period they were written, words such as "******" were common and are in the book. Some are challenged because they have some form of vulgarity (Goddamn, for example). Many are challenged because they have some reference or other to genitalia, breasts, menstruation, etc. - even in an educational manner (ie. the "what's happening to my body?" books). Others are challenged because they refer to magic, which must be "teh evil", right? Bridge to Terabithia (a wonderful book, btw) is likely challenged because it deals with death.

Who knows what parents will challenge when they can't be bothered to raise their own children?

most of the time its people that feel threatoned by inteligence and the truth

No, they feel that innocent, impressionable young children will not be able to deconstruct the insiduously-formulated arguments in some of the books, which will invariably lead them to draw false conclusions about the world around them. Specifically, some may be spurred forward towards liberality and immorality by some of these ominously inculculating texts.

That's weird... it's on the required reading for my school.

Same when I was in high school. However, the most "controversial" part is the chapter that deals with Winston and Julia having sex. At least, that's what I've heard come up most often. Some other issues also arise. Also, in the past it was challenged because it was "Pro-Communist"(However, anyone who has ever read the book knows otherwise).


Same with this one...


Bad language, and occasionally because of the Burning of the Bible and what not. People are easily inflamed(Pun intended).



What the hell? Is it because it mocks the army?


Mostly profanity, actually.


LAWL

Not really funny, so much as sad.

Has anyone ever noticed that some of the best pieces of Literature in the the past few centuries are up for banning? Lord of the Flies is often included on the list(One of the best pieces of Literature written, ever), Catcher in the Rye, A Farewell to Arms, Brave New World, many books by Mark Twain(Huck Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer are often up for banning), Clockwork Orange(obscene, but brilliant), Slaughterhouse Five, Of Mice and Men...

The list goes on and on, and many of those repeatedly were challenged(and many are banned or were banned in some areas.

Um...no, it isn't. It's about a young girl and her friends who are a the beginning of puberty. It's about Margaret's confusion over religion, over boys, over the changes in her body, and over her parent's divorce. I've read it quite a few times and I don't remember even a passing refernce to masturbation (not that it would be a problem if it were there).
It's all metaphorical. All that time Margaret spends "talking to God".

No sex in it at all. Hardly any swearing except for the occasional "Hell" and "dammit". A few people die.

A Harry Potter book is more ban-worthy than F451.

Well, it single handedly turns people into idiots, farely quickly. I just can't help but shake my head at the "Harry Potter Club" on Campus. They devote their entire lives to those books, and that is all they talk about(other than the occasional obscure Anime reference). I'm not saying it stupid to read them, but it seems it has the ability to turn people into obsessed Pottermaniacs.

No, they feel that innocent, impressionable young children will not be able to deconstruct the insiduously-formulated arguments in some of the books, which will invariably lead them to draw false conclusions about the world around them. Specifically, some may be spurred forward towards liberality and immorality by some of these ominously inculculating texts.

they love to wallow in their ingorance and feel the need to make others do the same. let me know when you find a kid who reads something and it does not make them think, most of the time its way way over there heads and when and if its not they will talk about.

It's all metaphorical. All that time Margaret spends "talking to God".

And you get masturbation out of that.........how, exactly? Do you normally talk about the problems you are going through and all the things you are confused about while masturbating? Sounds a bit strange to me.

Well, it single handedly turns people into idiots, farely quickly. I just can't help but shake my head at the "Harry Potter Club" on Campus. They devote their entire lives to those books, and that is all they talk about(other than the occasional obscure Anime reference). I'm not saying it stupid to read them, but it seems it has the ability to turn people into obsessed Pottermaniacs.

I take it you've never encountered a Tolkien fan before?

No, they feel that innocent, impressionable young children will not be able to deconstruct the insiduously-formulated arguments in some of the books, which will invariably lead them to draw false conclusions about the world around them. Specifically, some may be spurred forward towards liberality and immorality by some of these ominously inculculating texts.

I'm not sure if you are serious or not here, so I'm going to go with serious, for arguments sake.

Thing is, most of the books on the banned list serve as metaphors and warning for many things that "conservative" people do not like. For instance, 1984, which is banned relatively frequently, is a warning against Stalinism. However, it is often referred to by the book-burners as supporting Communism.

Fahrenheit 451 is, oddly enough, about censorship and bookburning, yet what happens? It is banned. Irony at it's worst.

Other examples are prevalent in many of the books.

I take it you've never encountered a Tolkien fan before?

Not a full-fledged one. Come on, I'm only 20. Hardcore Tolkienism was a bit before my time(However, it did reflourish for a little bit after the movies were released, but has died down).

Really, I couldn't get through the first book. The first 100 pages were so droling that it bored me to sleep on several occasions. I hear the later books were much more interesting.

Catcher in the Rye is a funny one. It's actually been banned in some places simply because a serial killer (don't remember his name) had like 50 copies in his house. Since this guy had a lot of copies, everyone figures there *must* be something wrong with it. If I remember correctly, some other famous criminals had copies too. LOL

It might not be banned anymore, but I'm certain it was banned in the U.S. during the Cold War.

I don't think it was, but I'm sure those who read it had a close watch kept over them.

Catcher in the Rye is a funny one. It's actually been banned in some places simply because a serial killer (don't remember his name) had like 50 copies in his house. Since this guy had a lot of copies, everyone figures there *must* be something wrong with it. If I remember correctly, some other famous criminals had copies too. LOL

I always figured it was more because of the whole anti-establishment theme of the book.

No, they feel that innocent, impressionable young children will not be able to deconstruct the insiduously-formulated arguments in some of the books, which will invariably lead them to draw false conclusions about the world around them. Specifically, some may be spurred forward towards liberality and immorality by some of these ominously inculculating texts.

No, they don't. They want to shield their children from things that they do not approve of. More often than not the Bible is used as a pretense for the banning of books.

I always figured it was more because of the whole anti-establishment theme of the book.

Well, to be honest, I haven't read it. It's on my list. But I have heard quite a few times that it was banned because several criminals had it - and because one killer in particular had many copies. Always seemed like a dumb idea to me. If he'd had 50 copies of the Bible, would they have banned that?

I don't think it was, but I'm sure those who read it had a close watch kept over them.

I think people who read it today have a watch over them even...

I always figured it was more because of the whole anti-establishment theme of the book.

Usually, it has to do with profanity and sexual content, as well as violence.

I think people who read it today have a watch over them even...

Naw. The "threat" of Communism has all but died out, and now we face a different type of "enemy":Terrorism.

Now, if you were reading Quran, you'd probably have a few raised eyebrows, and a few people watching you.

Ignorance seems to be America's favorite past-time, eh?

No, they don't. They want to shield their children from things that they do not approve of. More often than not the Bible is used as a pretense for the banning of books.

And that is a valid reason. I seem to recall that the Church and State are separated. As such, it is not the business of the state to attempt to refute religion; thus, no books must be mandatorily read which seek to smear religion.

Naw. The "threat" of Communism has all but died out, and now we face a different type of "enemy":Terrorism.

Now, if you were reading Quran, you'd probably have a few raised eyebrows, and a few people watching you.

Ignorance seems to be America's favorite past-time, eh?

please dont remind me:(

And that is a valid reason. I seem to recall that the Church and State are separated. As such, it is not the business of the state to attempt to refute religion; thus, no books must be mandatorily read which seek to smear religion.

Point to a book on any school reading list which seeks to smear religion.

Note that there is a difference between "seeks to smear religion," and "has something some people think their religion might just be against talked about somewhere in it."

Meanwhile, many of these books are banned (or the attempt is made) from school libraries altogether, not just from required reading lists. It would seem that separation of church and state would mean that you can't tell *my* child what he/she will or will not read based on *your* religion.

Ignorance seems to be America's favorite past-time, eh?

Hey, ignorance is strength. ;)

And that is a valid reason. I seem to recall that the Church and State are separated. As such, it is not the business of the state to attempt to refute religion; thus, no books must be mandatorily read which seek to smear religion.

Well, very few of these books smear religion at all. Most of those books deal with smearing social control(which is usually political in terms), and other such ideas, but rarely, if ever, is Religion smeared at all.

Hey, ignorance is strength. ;)

Lol. Nice. Very nice.

I could go on and on about the meanings of the IngSoc slogan, and what they perceive to mean, and the ideas they refer to... but I really do not want to go into that.

is there sex in it? i read it more than 30 years ago so i cant remember.

quite a few books are banned from schools because parents dont want their kids to find out why married people dont sleep in seperate beds.

Nope, no sex in it -- Montag and his wife sleep in separate beds.

There are some 'damns' in it.

Hey, ignorance is strength. ;)

A healthy dollop of ignorance is needed in a functional society -- just as absolute power corrupts absolutely, so does absolute intelligence. In any republic, those who are smart enough to serve there rational self-interest are outweighed by the ignorant who seek to maximize communal welfare. Otherwise, democracy would fail. America is such an excellent example of a thriving democracy because many people are ignorant -- it is, indeed, our stength. However, it's not like everyone is completely artless -- just the majority.

Periodically, some bible thumpers decide to ban Harry Potter, no other springs to mind...

The library (cough, Media center) in my school has a poster set up like an eyechart that says Censorship Blinds, Read! and last year at least there were lists taped to lockers with a list of books that had been banned anywhere and an urge to read them, so...

And you get masturbation out of that.........how, exactly? Do you normally talk about the problems you are going through and all the things you are confused about while masturbating? Sounds a bit strange to me.
I missed it when I first read the book (I was a kid). I'll try to track down a citation.

In any republic, those who are smart enough to serve there rational self-interest are outweighed by the ignorant who seek to maximize communal welfare.
Yet another reason to oppose democracy.

A healthy dollop of ignorance is needed in a functional society -- just as absolute power corrupts absolutely, so does absolute intelligence. In any republic, those who are smart enough to serve there rational self-interest are outweighed by the ignorant who seek to maximize communal welfare. Otherwise, democracy would fail. America is such an excellent example of a thriving democracy because many people are ignorant -- it is, indeed, our stength. However, it's not like everyone is completely artless -- just the majority.

I read this post several times in hopes that it might make sense eventually. It didn't.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that it is "ignorant" and not "smart" to seek to maximize communal welfare. You then state that this "ignorant," stupid behavior leads to a stable, thriving democratic society. Presumably, by your logic, being "smart" would not lead to a stable, thriving society.

You seem to have a very, very weird definition of intelligence.

Um...no, it isn't. It's about a young girl and her friends who are a the beginning of puberty. It's about Margaret's confusion over religion, over boys, over the changes in her body, and over her parent's divorce. I've read it quite a few times and I don't remember even a passing refernce to masturbation (not that it would be a problem if it were there).


I read it a few weeks ago again, there is no reference to masturbation that I found.

I know I used to have a different Judy Blume book that was something like "things every girl needs to know" that did talk about masturbation, but it was like a sex ed type book about puberty and stuff.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that it is "ignorant" and not "smart" to seek to maximize communal welfare. You then state that this "ignorant," stupid behavior leads to a stable, thriving democratic society. Presumably, by your logic, being "smart" would not lead to a stable, thriving society.

Indeed I am. First, start off by assuming that the rational course of action for any human being to take is that which most effectively maximizes their happniess. Further assume that those who are more "intelligent" are able to recognize which choices will increase their own personal happiness in the present and future, and are able to make that choice; the ignorant are solely concerned with increasing communal welfare. So what would happen in a society where everybody was intelligent? For one, pollution would be out of control -- we're not going to be alive to see the effects of what we're doing, so why should we care? Also, economic policies would be heavily slanted to favour the majority of people, which would be devastating overall. No wars would be participated in because it's not worth it to fight, or soldiers would be paid obscene amounts of money. Society, as we know, would collapse. I can't analyze all the consequences, but, needless to say, many would be quite detrimental to society as a whole. It is necessary for the ignorant to tie down the intelligent so that society can be a cohesive whole.

A healthy dollop of ignorance is needed in a functional society -- just as absolute power corrupts absolutely, so does absolute intelligence. In any republic, those who are smart enough to serve there rational self-interest are outweighed by the ignorant who seek to maximize communal welfare. Otherwise, democracy would fail. America is such an excellent example of a thriving democracy because many people are ignorant -- it is, indeed, our stength. However, it's not like everyone is completely artless -- just the majority.

I would argue that America is not a good example of a thriving Democracy. We are far to young for such a claim. Many countries existed in the past as the world's largest super-power for much longer than a couple hundred years, only to fall into ashes and be destroyed, or distant glimmers of thier past selves.

Although ignorance is common among the masses, it does is not what causes democracy to flourish. Infact a true, 100% democracy would almost require a well informed populace, free of ignorance and social controls. And just for reference, America is only somewhat Democratic. Our form does thrive not because of ignorance, but instead seems to encourage it. The people don't need to know what's going on-they don't make the hard choices. Instead, we have other people who we percieve as being well-informed to make the choices. This makes the general populace's lives easier, as they need not deal with difficult choices. Nobody wants to do what is difficult, so they choose to be ignorant, as ignorance can be blissful. This is why we have succeeded thus far-the people want to be ignorant. It's easy. It's simple. T

A healthy dollop of ignorance is needed in a functional society -- just as absolute power corrupts absolutely, so does absolute intelligence. In any republic, those who are smart enough to serve there rational self-interest are outweighed by the ignorant who seek to maximize communal welfare. Otherwise, democracy would fail. America is such an excellent example of a thriving democracy because many people are ignorant -- it is, indeed, our stength. However, it's not like everyone is completely artless -- just the majority.
Oh dear.

You're assuming that intelligent people are all selfish bastards who care for nothing but themselves...

Indeed I am. First, start off by assuming that the rational course of action for any human being to take is that which most effectively maximizes their happniess. Further assume that those who are more "intelligent" are able to recognize which choices will increase their own personal happiness in the present and future, and are able to make that choice; the ignorant are solely concerned with increasing communal welfare. So what would happen in a society where everybody was intelligent? For one, pollution would be out of control -- we're not going to be alive to see the effects of what we're doing, so why should we care? Also, economic policies would be heavily slanted to favour the majority of people, which would be devastating overall. No wars would be participated in because it's not worth it to fight, or soldiers would be paid obscene amounts of money. Society, as we know, would collapse. I can't analyze all the consequences, but, needless to say, many would be quite detrimental to society as a whole. It is necessary for the ignorant to tie down the intelligent so that society can be a cohesive whole.

That is also assuming that the ignorant are also out solely for social welfare(Which, in my experience, is rarely the case). The ignorant are out for themselves more so than they are out for the good of the people in general. However, it is far easier to please the ignorant, as their needs tend to be simple-an easy life, food on the table, shelter, and visual entertainment usually suffice. To complicate the matters with ideas of social welfare would bring them discomfort and remove them from bliss-thus is why they generally do not care about social welfare, but rather themselves. I'm not really sure where you are getting this from, but from what I have experienced, the ignorant care less about social welfare than about their own personal happiness(which often does coincide with social welfare, however that is usually an afterthought to their own personal happiness).

Indeed I am. First, start off by assuming that the rational course of action for any human being to take is that which most effectively maximizes their happniess. Further assume that those who are more "intelligent" are able to recognize which choices will increase their own personal happiness in the present and future, and are able to make that choice; the ignorant are solely concerned with increasing communal welfare. So what would happen in a society where everybody was intelligent? For one, pollution would be out of control -- we're not going to be alive to see the effects of what we're doing, so why should we care? Also, economic policies would be heavily slanted to favour the majority of people, which would be devastating overall. No wars would be participated in because it's not worth it to fight, or soldiers would be paid obscene amounts of money. Society, as we know, would collapse. I can't analyze all the consequences, but, needless to say, many would be quite detrimental to society as a whole. It is necessary for the ignorant to tie down the intelligent so that society can be a cohesive whole.

Actually, I've known many intelligent people to be selfless.

You're assuming that intelligent people are all selfish bastards who care for nothing but themselves...

What did the initial person who claimed "ignorance is strength" mean by ignorance? If it's simply artlessness when it comes to political matters, I can hardly be construed as a strength. I interpreted it in the only way I perceived it could make sense.

What did the initial person who claimed "ignorance is strength" mean by ignorance? If it's simply artlessness when it comes to political matters, I can hardly be construed as a strength. I interpreted it in the only way I perceived it could make sense.

That term refers to a book called 1984, in which the IngSoc party has a slogan which read:

"Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery"

What "Ignorance is Strength" means is that IngSoc gets stronger because the people are ignorant, and that since the Party is a party for the people, the people themselves will grow stronger. Of course, this was meant solely as propaganda, which was created by people who believed the propaganda themselves.

It really didn't have anything pertinent to the discussion, as it was meant as a joke to my statement that Ignorance is America's favourite pass-time.

Intelligence is independant of selfishness. (http://cantrip.org/stupidity.html?seenIEPage=1)

Communist Manifesto(The longest, most boring, most droling piece of literature you may ever read)

Isn't it only about 65 pages long or so?

Isn't it only about 65 pages long or so?

Long has many uses. It is short in the terms of actual pages, but long in the sense of how long it seems to take to read. I didn't mean the document itself was huge, just the way it seems as a person reads it.

No trouble getting banned books here. I'll even bust out the bible in class if I want to, noone bats an eye. You can have pretty much whatever you want here with the exclusion of sexual-oriented books, IE pornos.

However, I have a much stricter standard in my room...if I caught my roommate reading some of the 'other' stuff it would henceforth be banned from my domain from thence onward.

I don't think any books are banned in Britain, although 'Lady Chatterly's Lover' was banned for a while in the olden days because it had sex in it :rolleyes: .

Most books that I could see being banned fit into one of the following categories:

- Popular books that contain references to material often seen in horror movies, regardless of whether the book itself belongs in the horror genre (e.g, J.K. Rowling, R.L. Stein, and Stephen King books, among others)
- Books that discuss and/or support subjects deemed objectionable by religious fundamentalists and/or controlling parents (Origin of Species, many books concerning evolution or sexuality, many books concerning death)
- Anti-establishment books, usually of the dystopian and comedic varieties (dystopian: 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, The Giver, The Handmaid's Tale, etc; comedic: The Chocolate War, Mark Twain books, Ambrose Bierce books at one point)
- Books that touch upon race and class issues explicitly (To Kill a Mockingbird, The Outsiders, etc.)
- Great books that are banned for reasons I can't quite figure out (how the hell did Julie of the Wolves get on the Most Challenged list? Same for James and the Giant Peach, A Wrinkle in Time, How to Eat Fried Worms, and one or two others.)

I'm surprised that 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 aren't on the list (though the latter may be a required book for one of the AP English courses, which cpould explain things). I'm also pleasantly amused that certain Ambrose Bierce books (say, The Devil's Dictionary...) aren't on the current list... yet.

Schools are always banning books. Can't have students learning about anything controversial after all.

I saw Fahrenheit 451 advertised on Amazon...
--------------------
I don't think any books are banned in Britain, although 'Lady Chatterly's Lover' was banned for a while in the olden days because it had sex in it:rolleyes:
If i put sex in you can i get you banned?:cool:

*Just fooling with you*

I saw Fahrenheit 451 advertised on Amazon...
--------------------

If i put sex in you can i get you banned?:cool:

*Just fooling with you*

Generally when we say banned, we don't mean forbidden from being owned, we mean that it's been removed from the library. And even at that, it's only been removed from a tiny minority of libraries.

I guess you could look at it this way, though: we were still millions of times freer than the Soviet people.

Emphasize "were". You're on a par with them right now.

If i put sex in you can i get you banned?:cool:



I don't know, but we can try.

Indeed I am. First, start off by assuming that the rational course of action for any human being to take is that which most effectively maximizes their happniess. Further assume that those who are more "intelligent" are able to recognize which choices will increase their own personal happiness in the present and future, and are able to make that choice; the ignorant are solely concerned with increasing communal welfare. So what would happen in a society where everybody was intelligent? For one, pollution would be out of control -- we're not going to be alive to see the effects of what we're doing, so why should we care? Also, economic policies would be heavily slanted to favour the majority of people, which would be devastating overall. No wars would be participated in because it's not worth it to fight, or soldiers would be paid obscene amounts of money. Society, as we know, would collapse. I can't analyze all the consequences, but, needless to say, many would be quite detrimental to society as a whole. It is necessary for the ignorant to tie down the intelligent so that society can be a cohesive whole.

...so if we assume that your completely nonsensical, made-up definitions of "intelligent" as "entirely selfish" and "ignorant" as "concerned with social welfare" are neither nonsensical nor made-up, despite the fact that they are manifestly both, then your argument sort of makes sense!

Do you not see how silly this sounds? Heck, I can define "blue" as "made of cheese" and "magnificent" as "made of fecal matter" and thus conclude that it is better to eat blue things than magnificent ones, but it wouldn't really add much to any sane discussion. ;)

1984
F451
Catch 22
Communist Manifesto(The longest, most boring, most droling piece of literature you may ever read)
Mein Kampf
Most books by Samuel Clemens(AKA Mark Twain)
Origin of Species(Yes, there are some places which still ban this book)

etc, etc.

Odd list... MOST of those were on the required reading list at the local high school when I was in high school. I was homeschooled, and they lent us their books just like they lent them to everyone else. So I got to read most of those. Never made it through the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf, but I loved 1984, hated F451, thought Origin was a bit dumb but still interesting, and why the heck would they ban Mark Twain?

So how did "required reading list" material get to be "banned" material? Except now some psychotic lady's trying to get Harry Potter banned too. Oii... morons.

The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are banned books, I think...

Blame me. I banned both of these on the grounds that they are each godawful boring. I also banned For Whom the Bell Tolls by Earnest Hemmingway on the same day for the same reason. So sue me.

:p

Today I found Farenheit 451 in my school's library, and checked it out. I knew it was banned in other places and had assumed it would be banned in my county, but it was there in the high school library so I checked it out. Reading it, I wondered why it was ever banned.

Does anyone find it ironic that a book about censorship and burning books was banned? :p

DAMN! I missed banned books week at the end of last month! :eek: :(

Here's the ALA list of the top 100 most challenged books in the US for 1990-2000 (the most current I could find): http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

A number of those were required reading where I went to school, as well as a number of other famously banned books.

I've read 26, including 5 of the top 10. :D I need to read yet more.

As for Fahrenheit 451, good on ya. It's an excellent book. As for it;s banning, language was the key:

One particularly ironic circumstance is that, unbeknownst to Bradbury, his publisher released a censored edition in 1967 that eliminated the words "damn" and "hell" for distribution to schools. Later editions with all words restored include a "Coda" from the author describing this event and further thoughts on censorship and "well-meaning" revisionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

why the heck would they ban Mark Twain?

So how did "required reading list" material get to be "banned" material? Except now some psychotic lady's trying to get Harry Potter banned too. Oii... morons.

Language. Some utter idiots object to Twain's use of "******", for example. :headbang:

I read it a few weeks ago again, there is no reference to masturbation that I found.

I know I used to have a different Judy Blume book that was something like "things every girl needs to know" that did talk about masturbation, but it was like a sex ed type book about puberty and stuff.

According to wikipedia, she also wrote a book called Deenie which does deal with masturbation. It's geared towards a teen audience. *shrug*

According to wikipedia, she also wrote a book called Deenie which does deal with masturbation. It's geared towards a teen audience. *shrug*

oh well, Deenie, yeah. and Forever, which is about fucking while in junior high.... but those are completely different books.

I can see Mein Kampf being banned, as, although it has useful historical purposes, it's pretty darn inflammatory, but the Communist Manifesto? I've never read it, so is there something horribly offensive in it I don't know about?

Theres nothing wrong with either book. I've read them both and both are:


A. Dull.

B. Anti-Climatic

C. Provide no reasoning for their own existance.

The Communist Manifesto is basically the organized view of Marx and his Communist Party on how an ideal Communist Government should view things economically. It has good ideas, but is extremely repetitive to the point of creating tedium.


However, Mein Kampf is just dull. In almost 1000 pages, it says nothing.

Generally when we say banned, we don't mean forbidden from being owned, we mean that it's been removed from the library. And even at that, it's only been removed from a tiny minority of libraries.
Which makes you wonder if people are banning books because they disapprove of them, or because they want to be seen as disapproving of them.

There was considerable outcry when Lolita was remade into a film in the 1990s. There were many calls for the banning of the film.

The film was quite faithful to the book (even toned down a little), but no one wanted to ban the book - just the film. Are films somehow more dangerous than books?

It's an excellent book.

Which makes you wonder if people are banning books because they disapprove of them, or because they want to be seen as disapproving of them.

There was considerable outcry when Lolita was remade into a film in the 1990s. There were many calls for the banning of the film.

The film was quite faithful to the book (even toned down a little), but no one wanted to ban the book - just the film. Are films somehow more dangerous than books?

It's an excellent book.



Not a bad book at all. The 1960s version of the movie wasn't bad either.

Not a bad book at all. The 1960s version of the movie wasn't bad either.
It was Kubrick. That goes without saying.

Odd list... MOST of those were on the required reading list at the local high school when I was in high school. I was homeschooled, and they lent us their books just like they lent them to everyone else. So I got to read most of those. Never made it through the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf, but I loved 1984, hated F451, thought Origin was a bit dumb but still interesting, and why the heck would they ban Mark Twain?

So how did "required reading list" material get to be "banned" material? Except now some psychotic lady's trying to get Harry Potter banned too. Oii... morons.

Most of those books are banned largely for language and "explicit" material. The list isn't odd at all, infact many of those are quite frequently challenged. Mark Twain is banned due to "******" being quite a bit. This has some people claiming that the books are racist, although they completely ignore two things, first the area and time period the books took place in, and the accuracy of the area and time period Mark Twain was trying to portray. The term "******", as Twain used it, wasn't used as a derogatory or demeaning term, it was used as a common slur for blacks. Nobody back then went around saying "How's it going, African-American Jim", and writing that would remove one from the plot.

Required reading books are often up for challenge, because some parents get all uppity when their children read stuff that their parents think is "obscene". Of course, they ignore teh reasons why the books are required.

Theres nothing wrong with either book. I've read them both and both are:


A. Dull.

B. Anti-Climatic

C. Provide no reasoning for their own existance.

The Communist Manifesto is basically the organized view of Marx and his Communist Party on how an ideal Communist Government should view things economically. It has good ideas, but is extremely repetitive to the point of creating tedium.


However, Mein Kampf is just dull. In almost 1000 pages, it says nothing.

Well, A is absolutely true. B is self-evident as these books were not supposed to be made for entertainment purposes, thus a climax is not desirable. C is actually false, as both works were created for very different reasons by the two people. Mein Kampf was created by Hitler to not only express his views of the world, but also lay out a basic plan of what he wished to resolve. He used this book as a way of social control-but that's enough of this issue. The Manifesto's point was to bring to light Marx's viewpoint. Doesn't make it pointless, as many people do this to this day.

Here's the ALA list of the top 100 most challenged books in the US for 1990-2000 (the most current I could find): http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm






That list is only of books that are Challenged, not Banned - if you look at the other charts in there it says that for every challenge reported there are several that go unreported. So I view this as more of a list of books that are frequently complained about. Looking at the graphs , it seems that just about anyone can put in a challenge and the majority are done through schools - which is not to say that the institution itself challenged the book or books, only that there was a complaint - likely by a parent - and that complaint was reported.

That's my take on it anyway.

Here's the ALA list of the top 100 most challenged books in the US for 1990-2000 (the most current I could find): http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

A number of those were required reading where I went to school, as well as a number of other famously banned books.

I've read 26, including 5 of the top 10. :D I need to read yet more.[/url]

Hey! I've read 26 too... but 6 of the top 10.

All the things you all said about using "******" and other "language" probably have a point... however, as someone also accurately pointed out, they neglect the reasons the books were required, too. For example, To Kill a Mockingbird is an EXCELLENT book, largely about racism, and how totally wrong it is... and just because it uses racist language and behavior, it's banned. People are so stuuupid! How are we to teach children not to judge people by their skin - by ignoring the issue entirely and making sure they are not aware it ever happened, or by teaching them how to react to it in light of what has happened?

A number of those books I wouldn't mind having banned largely becuase they're so boring they're unreadable. I haven't got any clue why Where's Waldo is on there, presuming it's the Where's Waldo I am familiar with. There's another category of "too much for kids to handle" books there too, with people dying, (Bridge to Terebithia) or sexuality (Daddy's Roomate) or magic (The Witches) or too scary (Goosebumps) or any number of other things.

I think in the end it's the parents being too lazy to want to deal with having to teach their children. Isn't it better to let them read, and then help them figure out what to do with it, than to shelter them so later when they find those things in real life, they have no clue at all?