Thread: A truly vile book that needs banning Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026869
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
This is an article from the BBC about a book entitled To Train Up a Child
Anyone who buys this book and uses its methods is an inhuman monster who should be locked away for many, many years.
I'm not a parent who doesn't use corporal punishment. I have done, a very light tap on a hand or bottom to point out where a limit has been breached. The act itself triggered more tears from the kids than any pain. Even then I hated myself for doing it.
To be honest I cannot remember the last tile I had to smack one of my kids. It was years and years ago and I'm not proud of it. There are better ways for me personally, but sometimes it happens and I wont condemn a parent who does lightly smack a child to punish them.
But this book is grotesque. It advocates hitting under one year old - babies! - with sticks! What vile mind comes up with that?
You know me and my attitudes. It takes a great deal to shock me but this has done. I cannot believe anyone who uses the methods outlined in this book can call themselves a Christian in light of all of the love and respect that Christ himself showed to children.
Buying the book should be enough to get you excomunicated from any church and a series of visits from the police and child protection agencies in my view. It is advocating child abuse.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Deano, I don't usually agree with you, but this book is appalling.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
IMO, I think book bans are one of the few instances where the "camel's nose" argument is actually valid. Once you ban one book, the next ban becomes easier and so forth.
BTW--need I mention "Spare the rod, spoil the child"? Best ban the Bible then.
(PS - I am anti-corporal punishment)
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
IMO, I think book bans are one of the few instances where the "camel's nose" argument is actually valid. Once you ban one book, the next ban becomes easier and so forth.
BTW--need I mention "Spare the rod, spoil the child"? Best ban the Bible then.
(PS - I am anti-corporal punishment)
I'm not playing biblical proof texting on this. That phrase, like many other parts of the Bible, is something to ignore anyway.
I'm not interested in a debate about whether banning books is right (that's one for Purg).
All I'm saying is that I personally would ban that book if I had the authority, which unfortunately I don't.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
These things have been around a while. Back in the day I remember a popular US Christian paperback on bringing up kids catching on in the charismatic evangelical group I was involved with.
One of the things it advocated was not smacking with the hand - because Biblically the hand denoted blessing and this would confuse the child - but using an implement instead - a wooden spoon or stick.
That way the punishment would be 'objectified' away from the parental head and onto the implement.
'Yeah, like us a weapon,' as one of the school teachers in the congregation protested.
My mother used to tap me a bit with a wooden spoon when I was very small ... it wasn't considered outrageous in those days. I don't think I came to any harm by it ... but I share Deano's repugnance at books of this type and the kind of advice they give.
So, likewise, I'm with Deano on this one.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wouldn't ban the book as that would only be to add fuel to the fire of the crackpot US fundies who already feel that their Government is quasi-communist and out to persecute them.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
The fact that three American children have died at the hands of their parents as a direct result of this dreadful book and the appalling teaching of the Pearls speaks for itself, as far as I'm concerned. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Good call, Deano. I'm against censorship but Michael and Debbie Pearl - fundamentalists who believe in the subordination of women to men, as well as catastrophically bad methods of child-rearing - have a clear moral case to answer for here.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Even then I hated myself for doing it.
Why would you hate yourself, for such a minor thing?
I'll make an educated guess and say the children won't be demonstrably worse for it. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
(Personally speaking I've had the opportunity to see an infant who was WHALED on, repeatedly, grow up into one of the most admirable women you're ever likely to meet. While she seems a bit overly submissive now I have no doubt she will eventually be able to rule whatever roost she chooses.)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
These kinds of Christians have a weird view of a child's nature and how parents should respond to it. They see children as the epitome of walking, talking Original Sin, rebelling against God in God's agents, the parents. They beat the child not just into compliance but into submission and ideally a state of no self-will. They totally ignore all the Biblical gentle and loving views of children in Christ's actions and Paul's metaphors. One freaking line from Proverbs and the rest is out the window.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Laurelin: quote:
The fact that three American children have died at the hands of their parents as a direct result of this dreadful book and the appalling teaching of the Pearls speaks for itself, as far as I'm concerned.
Indeed. But surely a more appropriate response is to sue the pants off the authors for incitement to child abuse, remove children from the care of anyone who follows the 'teaching' of this book and imprison parents who injure or kill their children?
I am not American, but even I can see that banning books (however vile) will be viewed as un-American. Ensuring that every parent in America is aware that 'The Bible says I should do it' is not a valid excuse for child abuse is likely to be more effective in preventing this type of behaviour anyway.
[ 11. December 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
moron: quote:
(Personally speaking I've had the opportunity to see an infant who was WHALED on, repeatedly, grow up into one of the most admirable women you're ever likely to meet. While she seems a bit overly submissive now I have no doubt she will eventually be able to rule whatever roost she chooses.)
Codependents (which given her circumstances she might well be)are usually very nice people. They want to please and who doesn't like that?
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Quote from the book: quote:
When the time comes to apply the rod, take a deep breath, relax, and pray, "Lord, make this a valuable learning session. Cleanse my child of ill-temper and rebellion. May I properly represent your cause in this matter."
Cleanse the child of ill temper? The child? What about the adult who is about to attack the child with a blunt instrument?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
(Personally speaking I've had the opportunity to see an infant who was WHALED on, repeatedly, grow up into one of the most admirable women you're ever likely to meet. While she seems a bit overly submissive now I have no doubt she will eventually be able to rule whatever roost she chooses.)
The more likely outcome is she'll be attracted to someone who beats the crap out of her, and she'll have a perfectly awful life, as will her children.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The more likely outcome is she'll be attracted to someone who beats the crap out of her, and she'll have a perfectly awful life, as will her children.
We've been down some similar road before.
Do you really believe all the tripe you read and spout about 'likely outcomes'.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The book, from what I have heard (and I have no idea whether the reports of it are accurate), advocates actions that would be considered child abuse. Any book advocating child abuse as something that is acceptable today should be banned.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
That phrase, like many other parts of the Bible, is something to ignore anyway.
However this is really not the place to argue about biblical authority. Should the bible be banned? Well possibly for a range of reasons, not least because if you read and follow the ideas, it is dangerous. But it needs to be understood properly, and is not a manual for modern day child care.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I don't think we should ban the book but I do think we should have many , many voices raised in counter-argument against the stuff taught in it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
What Kelly says.
The problem with scripture is that it was given to God's people in different places and times (I've even got my charismatic/con-evo friends to agree to this!) and that resolves any number of apparent inconsistencies in the Bible, to my satisfaction anyhow.
That doesn't resolve the evil influence of the Pearl's though and like others, I'd love to know how the parents can themselves be submissive to God's will to the same extent. Maybe heads of households need to be beaten by pastors?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Even then I hated myself for doing it.
Why would you hate yourself, for such a minor thing?
I'll make an educated guess and say the children won't be demonstrably worse for it.
(Personally speaking I've had the opportunity to see an infant who was WHALED on, repeatedly, grow up into one of the most admirable women you're ever likely to meet. While she seems a bit overly submissive now I have no doubt she will eventually be able to rule whatever roost she chooses.)
So let me see if I understand this. deano starts a thread, in Hell, in which it is unlikely anyone will yell at him. This offends you so much that you offer up yourself?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The more likely outcome is she'll be attracted to someone who beats the crap out of her, and she'll have a perfectly awful life, as will her children.
We've been down some similar road before.
Do you really believe all the tripe you read and spout about 'likely outcomes'.
You're the one who blithely asserted that beating a girl all her life would turn her into an assertive young woman, despite acknowledging that she currently appeared 'submissive'.
I'm reasonably certain that our resident psychologists will confirm that abuse in childhood has a nasty habit of manifesting itself in adulthood. Hell, I'd be more sympathetic to your deranged effluvial outpourings if I thought you'd had the crap beaten out of you every night for the first sixteen years of your life.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Never to late to start..After all, he thinks it a good thing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
We ban products that cause death and injury.
I don't see why books should be immune from that principle just because we think ideas are some particularly sacred kind of 'product'.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't think we should ban the book but I do think we should have many , many voices raised in counter-argument against the stuff taught in it.
That sums it up for me. The book shouldn't banned anymore than the koran, Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the sports page in the local newspaper should be banned. Drag them all out into the sunlight and let folks say what they want about it all.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're the one who blithely asserted that beating a girl all her life would turn her into an assertive young woman, despite acknowledging that she currently appeared 'submissive'.
Sorry. I forgot how easily some are wound here. My bad.
quote:
Hell, I'd be more sympathetic to your deranged effluvial outpourings if I thought you'd had the crap beaten out of you every night for the first sixteen years of your life.
As has been said: Them's as dealt it smelt it.
Really, Dok Tor: it's OK to come clean here.
Your among friends. Some of them might even put down their weapons.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The book is like pornography. We ban child pornography and allow pretty much everything else. I can see this as child porn in a way, and could thus justify banning it. I'm not much of one for censorship, but the argument can be made I think.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
That book was not around when I was small, but the thinking behind it was. My dad had been through National Service, and in his wisdom decided that what he learned there about immediate obedience applied to myself and my siblings, pretty well from the start.
Fast forward to today and I am very, very damaged by this; there really is no further damage possible. And yes, many people do think I am a lovely person; very kind, very thoughtful, very empathic. They will probably not realise that I am chronically abused, and far too compliant to authority figures. I tend not to tell too many people that one; few can tolerate the awareness without abusing it, and me.
Meanwhile the rest of the family is happily living in denial and pretending that everything is fine. I have not worked for 13 years, but this is never mentioned.
Breaking the spirit of a child cannot be done without also breaking something else, imho. In my case it also broke my sense of identity. I have not read the book, but if it recommends what the BBC says then imo it needs to be regarded as a recommendaton to child abuse, and treated accordingly. This is not safe behaviour; a child does not have a fully formed personality, and if the child is abused to the point of breaking its spirit, it may never manage to achieve this.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Codependents (which given her circumstances she might well be)are usually very nice people. They want to please and who doesn't like that?
Can we lose the diagnosis by message board?
Victims of abuse =/= codependents.
Thanks.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
This is an article from the BBC about a book entitled To Train Up a Child
Anyone who buys this book and uses its methods is an inhuman monster who should be locked away for many, many years.
There isn't much I agree with you about. But To Torture Unmercifully a Child is one of them. Libby Anne has been doing a readthrough and deconstruction - quite horrifying.
And good to know that some things don't change and moron's self-chosen name still fits.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
I assume that at the heart of this revolting book lurks the pernicious doctrine of original sin. I'd be surprised if this were not the case. If one believes that a child is born in a state of "total depravity", then it makes sense to beat the crap out of it. After all, that child is considered of no value whatsoever until he or she becomes "a proper Christian".
In my view, the problem is not just about the rights and wrongs of corporal punishment, or even a stern view of morality, but it is about a fundamental failing within Christian theology. That is the virus - the toxin - that has led to this particular form of child abuse.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't think we should ban the book but I do think we should have many , many voices raised in counter-argument against the stuff taught in it.
That sums it up for me. The book shouldn't banned anymore than the koran, Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the sports page in the local newspaper should be banned. Drag them all out into the sunlight and let folks say what they want about it all.
Unless you wish to add the bible to this list, it is a fair bit offensive to include the Koran.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't think we should ban the book but I do think we should have many , many voices raised in counter-argument against the stuff taught in it.
That sums it up for me. The book shouldn't banned anymore than the koran, Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the sports page in the local newspaper should be banned. Drag them all out into the sunlight and let folks say what they want about it all.
Unless you wish to add the bible to this list, it is a fair bit offensive to include the Koran.
The NT doesn't tell me to go make life hell on other folks.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're the one who blithely asserted that beating a girl all her life would turn her into an assertive young woman, despite acknowledging that she currently appeared 'submissive'.
Sorry. I forgot how easily some are wound here. My bad.
quote:
Hell, I'd be more sympathetic to your deranged effluvial outpourings if I thought you'd had the crap beaten out of you every night for the first sixteen years of your life.
As has been said: Them's as dealt it smelt it.
Really, Dok Tor: it's OK to come clean here.
Your among friends. Some of them might even put down their weapons.
Jeez, you skeeve. When you drool does it burn holes in the floor?
Maybe you get off on the idea of someone's home life being some character-building boot camp full of instructive pain and shaming, but I think 9 out of 10 people with a grain of a soul would disagree.
And I double fucking dare you to walk up to that woman you so admire, look her in the eye, and say, "admit it, the beatings you got WHEN YOU WERE AN INFANT! were necessary for your personal growth."
[ 13. December 2013, 03:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't think we should ban the book but I do think we should have many , many voices raised in counter-argument against the stuff taught in it.
That sums it up for me. The book shouldn't banned anymore than the koran, Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the sports page in the local newspaper should be banned. Drag them all out into the sunlight and let folks say what they want about it all.
Unless you wish to add the bible to this list, it is a fair bit offensive to include the Koran.
The NT doesn't tell me to go make life hell on other folks.
Right. So when homosexuality is being discussed, the OT is relevant and Jesus "didn't come to overthrow the OT" But when atrocities are being compared, the OT is not relevant?
Both halves of the bible have been used to make life hell for other people.
You place an entire religions guideline in the same category as those pieces of shit because you do not like what some of its followers do? Again, the bible belongs there if the Koran does.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Bingo (sorry, Bingo, not you the expression)
The Koran was written at a time when everybody and his great granddad wanted to specifically kill Mohammed and his ragtag band of followers. Consequently, the Koran has a lot of stuff in it about fending off the enemy that radical fundamentalists use to justify terrorism. The NT has a lot of stuff in it that oppressors used to justify pogroms, Crusades, witch burnings, and slavery.
Can we stop playing "my religion is better than yours," human race, please? Because at this desperate point in time we need to draw on every genuine insight anyone has ever had to strengthen us.
[ 13. December 2013, 04:18: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Catholic blogger Elizabeth Esther challenged Michael Pearl in an interview on the BBC World Service yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01mtgtj
The segment begins at 27:40.
Good for her. She gets fiery and passionate. Pearl, IMO, hoists himself on his own petard. A Baptist minister also challenges Pearl on his 'traditional' views on child-rearing.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The NT has a lot of stuff in it that oppressors used to justify pogroms, Crusades, witch burnings, and slavery.
Doesn't it tend to be the OT that is used (or, more correctly, mis-used, because I'm leery of sounding as if I'm anti-Judaism) to justify such horrors ...
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
Please note: I an not one of those Pearls.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
My ban list is as good as anyone else's. If the book in the OP is "A truly vile book that needs banning" and such bannificational endeavors actually occur, then the koran should be the first to be banned since it and Islam are offensive.
That, or we go with my first comment and ban nothing so that folks can make up their own minds.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Can I point out that following the advice in the book would be illegal in the UK and open the perpetrator up to charges of child abuse, assault and quite possibly one or two other things as well.
Is there grounds, therefore, for banning it not on the grounds of it being vile or offensive, but of it inciting criminal behaviour?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Is there grounds, therefore, for banning it not on the grounds of it being vile or offensive, but of it inciting criminal behaviour?
That's what I was thinking about.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is there grounds, therefore, for banning it not on the grounds of it being vile or offensive, but of it inciting criminal behaviour?
By that criteria the koran should be banned. You really want to go this route? The phone book will have to be banned, too. Ask Steve Martin.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Incitement is in the intention of the author. The intention of this particular author is quite clearly to encourage people to treat their children in a manner that is illegal under UK law. It's a bit harder to prove the intent of the author of the Koran, and blindingly stupid to attempt to prove criminal intent in the author of the phone book.
[ 13. December 2013, 14:51: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Blindingly stupid describes Mere Nick's position on the Koran.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
I'm not in favor of book-banning. As already noted, it's generally counter-productive.
OTOH, I would hope that each new printing could be greeted with solid evidence from reputable researchers like Murray Straus that violence directed at children in an effort to "correct" misbehavior actually seems to produce more misbehavior. This is why "punishment" can lead fairly readily to abuse; both the misbehavior and the "punishment" keep escalating, and the parent-child relationship turns into a violent struggle for dominance.
What the Pearls advocate is simple "bullying" -- what else can you call it when a larger, stronger, more powerful adult deliberately inflicts pain on a child?
I can't provide a link to this valuable article by Straus (which has been backed by similar results by other researchers) because it's behind a subscription paywall in the journal Pediatrics.
I was raised by a parent who believed in instant absolute compliance, and who beat her female children often and severely -- with belts, chain link dog leashes, & other implements. (She didn't beat the boys, or if she did, it was before I came along). My sister suffered broken bones. I sustained bruising. She would do this in frenzied rages.
I've had years of therapy. Nevertheless, I don't procreate in part because I fear what I might do to any child I might produce and try to rear. My sister has one adopted child whom she subjected to beatings.
These Pearls need ongoing unmasking as the idiots they are, and as contributors to a culture of violence, and to yet another cultural trend of raising compliant sheep -- which, as we all know, leads to government by wolves.
[ 13. December 2013, 17:44: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I was raised by a parent who believed in instant absolute compliance, and who beat her female children often and severely -- with belts, chain link dog leashes, & other implements. (She didn't beat the boys, or if she did, it was before I came along). My sister suffered broken bones. I sustained bruising. She would do this in frenzied rages.
One of the things I very much appreciate about this place is if ever a victimized gay ex former lesbian male now on the right track liberal who used to be conservative is perceived useful one will almost certainly be paraded.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
One of the things I very much appreciate about this place is if ever a victimized gay ex former lesbian male now on the right track liberal who used to be conservative is perceived useful one will almost certainly be paraded.
I think your Ship name is rather too flattering.
You have two people attest to the ill effects of an abusive upbringing, and the best you can manage is a sort of incoherent sneer.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
One of the things I very much appreciate about this place is if ever a victimized gay ex former lesbian male now on the right track liberal who used to be conservative is perceived useful one will almost certainly be paraded.
Using clearer, better punctuated English than that, I hope.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
And this is why kids will continue to get beaten, because people are so invested in pointing out how much worse other people are that they won't call their own people to task.
What the average Muslim does about violent passages in the Koran is up to his/ her own conscience. What I, as a Christian do about people using the words of my faith to promote harm of other people is very much my own business.
[ 13. December 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And this is why kids will continue to get beaten, because people are so invested in pointing out how much worse other people are that they won't call their own people to task.
What the average Muslim does about violent passages in the Koran is up to his/ her own conscience. What I, as a Christian do about people using the words of my faith to promote harm of other people is very much my own business.
Sorry, Kelly, but the mote-beam problem's only part of the issue. The other is leaving abuse up to individual conscience. On behalf of victims of violence, we're ALL responsible for calling out anybody who bullies kids or spouses when we learn of the abuse. Victims continue to be beaten when we leave things up to the individual to alter -- or not -- his/her own behavior.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Incitement is in the intention of the author. The intention of this particular author is quite clearly to encourage people to treat their children in a manner that is illegal under UK law. It's a bit harder to prove the intent of the author of the Koran, and blindingly stupid to attempt to prove criminal intent in the author of the phone book.
Not that long ago I was asked to arrange the interment of ashes in a churchyard. The next of kin was a Baptist and he was clearly respecting mums wishes who was C of E. I managed to sort everything out to his satisfaction. He mentioned that his wife, who was a child protection officer and also a Baptist had needed to have a word with a pastor (Not Baptist) who had preached a spare the rod spoil the child type of sermon. So, in the UK, it's probably a bad idea to assume violence against children is a bad thing.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And this is why kids will continue to get beaten, because people are so invested in pointing out how much worse other people are that they won't call their own people to task.
What the average Muslim does about violent passages in the Koran is up to his/ her own conscience. What I, as a Christian do about people using the words of my faith to promote harm of other people is very much my own business.
Sorry, Kelly, but the mote-beam problem's only part of the issue. The other is leaving abuse up to individual conscience. On behalf of victims of violence, we're ALL responsible for calling out anybody who bullies kids or spouses when we learn of the abuse. Victims continue to be beaten when we leave things up to the individual to alter -- or not -- his/her own behavior.
I'm equally sorry, but that has nothing to do with whether a person is Muslim or Christian-- and is more or less part of the exact point I was making. Why are we getting into the Next Crusade when the safety of kids is at stake? WHo cares which fringe faction for which religion distorts what? People who know the damage that physical abuse does need to speak the hell up, period.
The Koran tangent is exactly that-- a tangent serving to comfortably skirt us around an uncomfortable subject. We all have mote and beam issues but we all also have decent people who are capable of raising their voices.
[ 14. December 2013, 03:02: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I don't think any book should be banned, but anyone following the instructions of this book should be punished severely and publically for child abuse in a way that edifies other people reading the book and thinking of following its advice. The Pearls advise using flexible plumbing supply line in addition to switches.
Cases like this almost (but not quite) make me agree with Judge Scalia that it's too bad Constitutional Originalism has given up on restoring public whipping as a punishment. Long prison sentences until the children are safely adults is a good treatment.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Let's make it three posters telling moron he's got it wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I was raised by a parent who believed in instant absolute compliance, and who beat her female children often and severely -- with belts, chain link dog leashes, & other implements. (She didn't beat the boys, or if she did, it was before I came along). My sister suffered broken bones. I sustained bruising. She would do this in frenzied rages.
Ditto - but both parents
Some of it is position in the family - apparently, according to the psych I saw when I finally hit breakdown. The oldest apparently tends to do what I did, which is comply quite quickly, and the further down the family you go, the more the child retains some independence. Someone who really knows will know exactly what I'm half remembering in garbled form.
I'm the oldest and family folklore says I became compliant after one beating by my father - and seeing and hearing my younger sisters being beaten to remind me what was on offer. There's a film, kept and shown with much hilarity, of my next sister down being thoroughly thrashed with a slipper for walking over stepping stones in party shoes - which she was dressed in for the wedding we were on our way to, but we stopped for a picnic next to a stream*. My youngest sister has scars from being thrashed with a riding crop - and she was the worst behaved of us all - and she learnt to lie and how to be devious and dishonest to avoid the punishments. Those thrashings weren't in a rage.
My mother used to lose it and do things in anger. I have scars from my mother kicking me with wooden clogs after my youngest sister blamed me for something she'd done.
Porridge - I learnt not to do this to my own child - partly through the training to become a pre-school leader, partly because I was determined to break the cycle. It completely broke my relationship with my parents. I couldn't keep in obedience to them and treat my own child appropriately.
* yes, I know - when I did this sort of thing with my daughter we arrived where we were going with time to spare to get changed into party clothes and wore play clothes on the way there.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Let's make it three posters telling moron he's got it wrong.[...]
Porridge - I learnt not to do this to my own child - partly through the training to become a pre-school leader, partly because I was determined to break the cycle. It completely broke my relationship with my parents. I couldn't keep in obedience to them and treat my own child appropriately.
This is where the character building comes in-- you don't grow in character from having the shit beat out of you-- as you describe, getting the shit beat out of you saddles you with all kinds of involuntary reactions and false assumptions that you then have to fight around and (if you are lucky enough to be aware of what is going on) actively combat. THAT is what makes you stronger.
Just like cancer doesn't make you fucking stronger-- it actively tries to make you weaker. And people who might say 'Cancer was the best thing that happened to me, it made me a better person" are talking about their own strength of spirit, not about what is actually happening to their bones and tissue. We would not advise people to shoot themselves up with AIDS to build their character, for God's sake.
Respect, CK. Good post. And word upon how training in early childhood education can undo a lot of damage, if the trainee allows it.
[ 14. December 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
After a little more thinking and reflecting on personal experience, I guess I can accept that this violence-advocating sort of book shouldn't or cannot be banned, but that there should be a complete banning of any acts of violence toward children. In Canada, most child protection units have pretty well zero tolerance for any form of violent correction, and as I understand it, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that an handed spanking is as far as is permissible, but I would suggest a full and total ban on anything involving striking a child.
Personal experience: When I was sent to boarding school, the teachers had 26" wooden paddles and used them. We were usually beaten in front of the class, holding our knees. Whack whack whack. It was a good Christian school. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Offences included errors in written poetry memorization. spelling tests and similar severely offensive behaviour. It was more regimented than my parents, and the belt was replaced with wood.
I suggest that there is a difference in perception if you've actually experienced such things.
[ 14. December 2013, 16:31: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm still not sure why so many of you appear to be convinced it makes sense to sell a book that cannot be used.
That is, if you're convinced this book directly leads to harm, why not ban it?
We do ban books in this country. Not very often at all, but we do it.
Whether this book would get banned I don't know. Probably not, in fact, on the grounds that it would be possible for a vaguely sane person to read it and apply its ideas in moderation so as to not break the law. But most of you seem to be arguing that the book inevitably leads to law-breaking. In which case, I don't see why you shouldn't ban the book.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm still not sure why so many of you appear to be convinced it makes sense to sell a book that cannot be used.
Choosing not to stock a book is a lot different than banning it, if that's what you mean. I would fully support a merchant not stocking a book that they are not comfortable promoting.
"Banning" implies getting the law involved in monitoring the content of a book, and that crap always winds up biting us in the ass. It's always the wrong people who wind up taking hold of the steering wheel of a law like that.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But most of you seem to be arguing that the book inevitably leads to law-breaking. In which case, I don't see why you shouldn't ban the book.
Only can speak for American/ Californian law, but unfortunately it wouldn't.
[ 14. December 2013, 21:00: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Around here there are sometimes complaints about the censorship of films, but rarely about the censorship of books or magazines. It's pretty uncommon these days. The most likely reason for a ban in recent times would be, as I've suggested, advocating or instructing illegal acts. Like how to make bombs.
To be honest I find the American approach illogical. If you don't want people to make bombs, don't freely sell them bomb making manuals. It's called mixed messages. People psychologically assume that if something can be bought legally then it is permissible.
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
Reading the report, I have impression that the book pulls supporters in by mixing universally appealing statements about loving your children with the hideous (beating them) in an effort to achieve the greater good of obedience. After all, which parent would not want their children to be obedient most of the time?
The problem with the obedience approach promoted in the book (quite apart from the psychological fallout of the methodological violence) is that it does not satisfactorily state to whom obedience should be granted in the long run. I would shudder to think that my children would be slavishly obedient to me as long as I lived, but if obedient is all I brought them up to be, then the method has to fail at some point. If they at some point in adolescence choose to reject my authority (which they inevitably will), then what authority do they turn to? I can think of a lot of bad options.
The authors will of course retort "the authority of God". To which the problem is that God's authority is always related through other human authorities, at least to the largest extent, unless the element of lived relationship comes to the fore. But the book totally neglects the importance of lived relationships. Indeed, it undermines it.
Parents who like the book's approach should invited to think what obedience would look like 20 years into their child's life.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I'm sorry I was unclear; what I meant was. a book about corporal punishment-- even involving actual flogging-- would not necessarily contravene any laws regarding child abuse. Not necessarily. It kind of goes back to when CK and No_Prophet were saying-- first we need to educate people as to what constitutes abuse, and what effect it has on children,and then make a couple laws we can refer to when discussing whether or not the book encourages law-breaking.
And that's where loud voices come in.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Reading the report, I have impression that the book pulls supporters in by mixing universally appealing statements about loving your children with the hideous (beating them) in an effort to achieve the greater good of obedience. After all, which parent would not want their children to be obedient most of the time?
(Cross post--yeah, good point)
The two fold approach to the corporeal punishment debate seems to be " When I got hit, I learned quick what my expectations were " and "X child would not be such a brat if he here hit more." Both arguments seem to be trying to be equating permissiveness with lack of physical correction. That's BS-- permissiveness is connected to lack of boundaries.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Reading the report, I have impression that the book pulls supporters in by mixing universally appealing statements about loving your children with the hideous (beating them) in an effort to achieve the greater good of obedience. After all, which parent would not want their children to be obedient most of the time?
(Cross post--yeah, good point)
The two fold approach to the corporeal punishment debate seems to be " When I got hit, I learned quick what my expectations were " and "X child would not be such a brat if he here hit more." Both arguments seem to be trying to be equating permissiveness with lack of physical correction. That's BS-- permissiveness is connected to lack of boundaries.
I'd be more impressed if those in favour of corporal punishment were in favour of it for disobedient adults too. It seems strange that smacking one's spouse is so widely (but not universally) recognised as assault while doing the same thing to one's child is not. There is the question of who should carry out the punishment, but I'm sure there's a spiritual gift to cover correction where a mere rebuke won't do.
I'm sure those televangelists that have been caught with their fingers in the till, or their hands in the wrong panties, might think twice if they knew they could get six cuts for these moral breakdowns. Those tears we see when they confess wouldn't be crocodile ones for a start.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Blindingly stupid describes Mere Nick's position on the Koran.
We've been in "blindingly stupid" territory ever since the OP said a book should be banned. My opinion about the Koran is perfectly fine.
If books on spanking kids are to be banned then so should books that teach wife beating.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If books on spanking kids are to be banned then so should books that teach wife beating.
Um, you mean the bible?
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
I may be wrong, but I'm not sure the bible promotes wife beating. There is certainly stuff about physical punishment of children, and proverbs about fools needing to have some sense beaten into them, but as far as I know there is nothing that suggests husbands should, or may, beat their wives. I'm sure someone will be along to correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It does say you can kill your kid if they give you lip. And your daughter if she seems to have had sex whilst still living with you.
But maybe no on the wife beating, so its alright then.
Just to be clear, I am am not attacking the bible, merely pointing out it has at least a few faults of its own.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
One important difference between adults and children is that each adult is responsible for himself. No child is responsible for himself. Adult authority over children results from the fact that the adults are responsible for the children's behavior.
This means that equating wife-beating with child-beating is incorrect. Both are wrong, but lumping them together confuses the issue.
Moo
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd be more impressed if those in favour of corporal punishment were in favour of it for disobedient adults too.
This.
When we screw up at work, as any of us might do, are our bosses entitled to stand us in the lobby and whup us -- say, as an example to other employees who might otherwise be tempted to lift company pens or paperclips? How about when a truly bad apple embezzles the retirement accounts?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One important difference between adults and children is that each adult is responsible for himself. No child is responsible for himself. Adult authority over children results from the fact that the adults are responsible for the children's behavior.
This means that equating wife-beating with child-beating is incorrect. Both are wrong, but lumping them together confuses the issue.
Moo
In present-day understandings, yes. But there's little indication that Biblical "rules" regard wives (or women generally) as fully-independent and responsible adults. In both the OT and NT, there are indications that she's required to obey some male authority figure in her family -- husband, father, brother, eldest of-age son.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The OT biblical ideas about children and wives are ideas about property. You own your child or sheep so considering sacrificing them because you think God wants you to is perfectly reasonable. You want another wife, work another 7 years. Idiots who think the OT is a guide to life might consider updating. I for example, base my life on Star Trek.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
This means that equating wife-beating with child-beating is incorrect. Both are wrong, but lumping them together confuses the issue.
Moo
It does not confuse the point I am making. Which is if one condemns one book for those things we consider wrong, the same condemnation applies to all such books.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I for example, base my life on Star Trek. [/QB]
Star Trek in general or just the will of Landru?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm still not sure why so many of you appear to be convinced it makes sense to sell a book that cannot be used.
That is, if you're convinced this book directly leads to harm, why not ban it?
We do ban books in this country. Not very often at all, but we do it.
Whether this book would get banned I don't know. Probably not, in fact, on the grounds that it would be possible for a vaguely sane person to read it and apply its ideas in moderation so as to not break the law. But most of you seem to be arguing that the book inevitably leads to law-breaking. In which case, I don't see why you shouldn't ban the book.
Books consist of written words, and written words express, or at least are intended to express, ideas, opinions, questions, etc. In allowing the open expression of ideas, opinions, etc., the members of human communities can get a handle on what ideas are percolating in their midst. Discussion about ideas can allow for the development of useful suggestions about issues affecting the entire community. Likewise, batshit crazy destructive ideas like the ones in this book can also be discussed. This is one way in which communities arrive at their own cultural norms -- through approval and disapproval, publicly expressed.
When we ban books, we ban the expression of the ideas they contain. Those ideas have smaller chance of being publicly raised and discussed, but this doesn't eradicate them. Instead, it drives them underground, where they can be neither explored nor deplored. They can't be "measured" against other community norms. They become inaccessible to things like research. If the Klan is operating in our midst, I prefer them out in the open, so I can know about them and what they're up to. When they're allowed free expression, they likely will be out in the open. If there are groups advocating violence against children, we're all better off for knowing who they are and what they teach, so we can avoid hiring them as nannies for our kids or electing a whole passel of them to the school board*, where they might put through a policy requiring corporal punishment of students.
*I live in a state where a group of extremely conservative Christians did take over a local school board for a couple of years. They had a field day banning books and sex-ed courses and instituting Creationism in science classes until the community woke up and voted them out of office.
[ 16. December 2013, 14:02: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
It seems to me that the bits of the Bible that advocate apparently barbaric punishments are, like the rough justice meted out by our forefathers (beheading, burning etc.), a product of the times in which they were written.
The book referred to in the OP is modern, but advocates methods of child-rearing that were once, but are no longer, generally acceptable.
I wouldn't normally advocate banning books; my usual view is "though I disagree with what you say with every fibre of my being, I would defend to my last breath your right to say it", but when a book actively condones something illegal, like child abuse, banning it seems reasonable.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
It seems to me that the bits of the Bible that advocate apparently barbaric punishments are, like the rough justice meted out by our forefathers (beheading, burning etc.), a product of the times in which they were written.
The book referred to in the OP is modern, but advocates methods of child-rearing that were once, but are no longer, generally acceptable.
I wouldn't normally advocate banning books; my usual view is "though I disagree with what you say with every fibre of my being, I would defend to my last breath your right to say it", but when a book actively condones something illegal, like child abuse, banning it seems reasonable.
I'm in two minds about that. Point out to these numskulls that they are free to propose X, so that when someone is harmed as a result of X being employed for the very purpose they advocate it, they carry the can.
I'm all for free speech, but not irresponsible free speech, and this book is designed* to teach responsibility. Hello Mr Gander, meet Miss Goose.
*I may be wrong. It could be a publicity stunt.
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on
:
But if you did start by banning this book, where would you stop? There are stacks and stacks of parenting manuals that advocate some degree of 'physical correction', even ones that are otherwise quite reasonable. You can easily work your way up the scale of severity.
Do we just ban the ones written by fundamentalist Christians? Or institute an age-limit: no writing about smacking under-1's or over 10's? Or any suggestion of using implements/weapons? Who draws the line? What might be mildly over-the-top for some children would be spirit-shattering for others.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The OT biblical ideas about children and wives are ideas about property. You own your child or sheep so considering sacrificing them because you think God wants you to is perfectly reasonable. You want another wife, work another 7 years. Idiots who think the OT is a guide to life might consider updating. I for example, base my life on Star Trek.
One of the things I'm sincerely enjoying about this thread is seeing how often shipmates I normally don't get along with say stuff I think is awesome. And this was superb. Kudos. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm still not sure why so many of you appear to be convinced it makes sense to sell a book that cannot be used.
That is, if you're convinced this book directly leads to harm, why not ban it?
We do ban books in this country. Not very often at all, but we do it.
Whether this book would get banned I don't know. Probably not, in fact, on the grounds that it would be possible for a vaguely sane person to read it and apply its ideas in moderation so as to not break the law. But most of you seem to be arguing that the book inevitably leads to law-breaking. In which case, I don't see why you shouldn't ban the book.
The American view is that the authorities who want to ban books are not to be trusted. The right to propose changes in the law requires the ability to write and make a public discussion. Abolitionists had to fight to be able to publish arguments for eliminating slavery.
Books about homosexuality were banned long before the elimination of the anti-sodomy laws. The banning certainly impeded the argument for the rights of homosexuals. There's a long list of books banned in America In retrospect, most of them are not harmful and the librarians are fond of brandishing the classics.
There are sometimes hard cases at the edge. Freedom of Speech stops before a lynch mob can put a rope on someone's neck. But in general, there's a presumption that written test doesn't cause irrevocable harm. We allow murder mysteries even though they may show how to evade punishment and ingenious ways to murder. If you actually murder someone from reading a book, you should be punished for the murder.
I share the American sentiment that the people proposing banning books do more damage to the free exchange of ideas than the books that people want to ban.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
We allow murder mysteries even though they may show how to evade punishment and ingenious ways to murder. If you actually murder someone from reading a book, you should be punished for the murder.
Yes. Because a murder mystery presents itself as a piece of entertainment, not as an instruction manual.
And fundamentally my argument is very specific to instruction manuals. Not the expression of ideas in general, only those ideas that are specifically expressed in the form "I'll tell you what to do".
If you've got laws against incitement to violence, incitement to treason, and so forth, I really don't see why it should be acceptable to incite so long as you do the respectable thing and write it down in a book.
Again, whether this particular book goes far enough to be considered a instruction manual for 'incitement to assault' is not a question I have a definitive answer to. To what extent have the particularly newsworthy cases blended their own crazy notions with what was in the text to come up with something the authors didn't intend? Having not read the book, I don't know.
I am expressing this at the level of principle: if a book's purpose is to instruct an action, and the carrying out the instructed action would be illegal, then in my view it makes perfect sense to make the book illegal.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
So would you ban a book that incited murder? A book that was saying something like "You shall not suffer a witch to live"?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So would you ban a book that incited murder? A book that was saying something like "You shall not suffer a witch to live"?
I'm going to be all tricky and technical with you and say yes, I would ban a book that incited murder. So long as you understand that killing is not automatically murder.
Because the whole point is that murder is the kind of killing that the law regards as unlawful.
And also, that I wouldn't strip the laws of previous civilisations from the historical record.
Slavery is now illegal. I wouldn't say that all pre-revolutionary American books about how to keep slaves should be banned just because it is NOW illegal to keep slaves, because it wasn't illegal to keep slaves at the times the books were written. An author in 1840 can't be expected to comply with the laws of 2013. But would I ban a book written now that instructed you on how to kidnap a girl now and keep her in your basement for a decade now? Yes. Because an author in 2013 can be expected to comply with the laws of 2013.
Would I ban a book that said witches must be put to death that was written at a time when putting witches to death was, in fact, lawful? No. Because it didn't satisfy my test when the book was published/written.
[ 17. December 2013, 03:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
So it's the writing of the book and not the publication date that's relevant to your book banning? New Editions of old works aren't banned? How about books which contain extracts of older works and new commentary?
What about books inciting severe corporal punishment of children written a year before such punishment was made illegal? How about if it was written and published in another country where the banned act was legal?
The problem with your book banning is that it ends up being all tricky and technical. People end up finding excuses to not ban things they like and reasons to ban things they don't like. You also end up with two books that say the same thing but were written at different times. One is banned and one is not.
[ 17. December 2013, 04:43: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The problem with your book banning is that it ends up being all tricky and technical.
Life is messy. I don't think this is a mark against orfeo's scheme at all.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
How can a book actually be banned since it will show up on the internet almost immediately after it is banned?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Palimpsest: quote:
We allow murder mysteries even though they may show how to evade punishment and ingenious ways to murder.
Actually, most murder mysteries end up with the killer being caught and punished - in fact if it's an American murder mystery the killer is quite likely to be shot dead whilst trying to murder the detective, thus saving the state the cost of a trial and providing free propaganda for the NRA in one stroke (British murder mysteries usually end with the killer being arrested).
Murder mysteries are the modern equivalent of the mediaeval morality play, as Dorothy Sayers once said; the whole point of them is that at the end of the story, Order is restored and Justice (or a reasonable approximation of it) is served. The message they send is that however ingenious you think you are and however clever your plan might be, you will not get away with murder.
Fantasy and SF, on the other hand, quite often DO show characters getting away with murder. If you want to pick on genre fiction you chose the wrong target.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you've got laws against incitement to violence, incitement to treason, and so forth, I really don't see why it should be acceptable to incite so long as you do the respectable thing and write it down in a book.
There's a difference, legally speaking, between advocacy and incitement - U.S. law requires there to be likelihood of immediate lawlessness for incitement. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969:
quote:
The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
link
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Palimpsest: quote:
We allow murder mysteries even though they may show how to evade punishment and ingenious ways to murder.
Actually, most murder mysteries end up with the killer being caught and punished - in fact if it's an American murder mystery the killer is quite likely to be shot dead whilst trying to murder the detective, thus saving the state the cost of a trial and providing free propaganda for the NRA in one stroke (British murder mysteries usually end with the killer being arrested).
Murder mysteries are the modern equivalent of the mediaeval morality play, as Dorothy Sayers once said; the whole point of them is that at the end of the story, Order is restored and Justice (or a reasonable approximation of it) is served. The message they send is that however ingenious you think you are and however clever your plan might be, you will not get away with murder.
Fantasy and SF, on the other hand, quite often DO show characters getting away with murder. If you want to pick on genre fiction you chose the wrong target.
The mystery is useful as a guide to getting away with murder if it includes failures as well as successes. Avoiding failure is usually more important than the kind if success is achieved.
The British Mystery tends to follow the Sayers ordered is restored. The Scandinavian mysteries I've read frequently have the perpetrator escape even though detected and the detective sadly blaming the crime on society.
I've been reading a bunch of John Sandford police thrillers set in Minnesota and a large number of them are serial murders that end up with the murderer shot as you describe. About a fifth of the criminals escape. If books which shows how to do despicable actions are banned, they would surely qualify.
The morality play is only one variation in the mysteries. To me more interesting variation is the type of whodunit which shows what is invisible in the social order of the murder. "The Butler did it" shows that servants are people. The California mysteries often (Macdonald and Grafton) often revolve around the fact that there is a past and it matters. All too many use the detectives romantic or sexual interest in a suspect conceals the murderer.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I believe the author of the book of the original post would describe it as a biblical extract with explication. That would put it in the "it's ok, it's historical" category of your tricky technical rules.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The problem with your book banning is that it ends up being all tricky and technical.
Life is messy. I don't think this is a mark against orfeo's scheme at all.
And words like tricky and technical hardly frighten a legislative drafter. Laws have to express principles that are going to apply to millions of people and millions of situations each and every day. If I panicked at the sight of a few hypotheticals that might require refining of a rule, I'd be out of a job.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I believe the author of the book of the original post would describe it as a biblical extract with explication. That would put it in the "it's ok, it's historical" category of your tricky technical rules.
I must have missed the passage of the Bible that discusses plastic pipes.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The problem with your book banning is that it ends up being all tricky and technical.
Life is messy. I don't think this is a mark against orfeo's scheme at all.
And words like tricky and technical hardly frighten a legislative drafter. Laws have to express principles that are going to apply to millions of people and millions of situations each and every day. If I panicked at the sight of a few hypotheticals that might require refining of a rule, I'd be out of a job.
All very true, but I believe an established principle of law-making is that it should not be done in reaction to a small number of hard cases, and this book is certainly one of those.
Too often in Britain there has been outrage and a feeling that Something Must Be Done, which has resulted in poorly drafted and occasionally unenforceable legislation, albeit with the best of intentions.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The problem with your book banning is that it ends up being all tricky and technical. People end up finding excuses to not ban things they like and reasons to ban things they don't like. You also end up with two books that say the same thing but were written at different times. One is banned and one is not.
So because something is tricky and technical and hard we ought not to bother?
Anything else that's just too much bother? Finding paedophiles or rapists perhaps, or murderers?
How about emancipating the slaves. That was tricky and technical, so tricky and technical that it led to a war. Should they not have bothered then?
What you are saying is that this book is too much of an effort to ban even though it actvely promotes child abuse.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Would I ban a book that said witches must be put to death that was written at a time when putting witches to death was, in fact, lawful? No. Because it didn't satisfy my test when the book was published/written.
How do we change laws?
I don't personally believe that we should go around killing witches, but what if I did? How would I advocate for that?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The problem with your book banning is that it ends up being all tricky and technical. People end up finding excuses to not ban things they like and reasons to ban things they don't like. You also end up with two books that say the same thing but were written at different times. One is banned and one is not.
So because something is tricky and technical and hard we ought not to bother?
Anything else that's just too much bother? Finding paedophiles or rapists perhaps, or murderers?
How about emancipating the slaves. That was tricky and technical, so tricky and technical that it led to a war. Should they not have bothered then?
There was nothing tricky or technical about emancipation. Importantly, it was not a question of degree: all slave-trading was wrong, all slave owning was wrong, therefore slave-trading and slave-owning were outlawed.
Similarly about rapists, murderers and paedophiles. Rape, murder and the sexual abuse of children are always crimes, in all circumstances.
quote:
What you are saying is that this book is too much of an effort to ban even though it actvely promotes child abuse.
Banning books however is tricky and technical however because we are not banning every book. We want to be choosy about it, but still put some rules into law. OTOH, there's nothing tricky or technical about child abuse, sexual or otherwise, so, just as an example, when a baby is hit with a 12" ruler, bring the full weight of the law to bear. I'm sure there plenty of "violence against the person" legislation to cater for that, in any jurisdiction you could name.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
All very true, but I believe an established principle of law-making is that it should not be done in reaction to a small number of hard cases, and this book is certainly one of those.
*Looks at Sioni*
*Looks at real-world media*
*Looks at real-world politicians*
*Provides link to Onion classic parodying how these things actually work*
*Looks at Sioni again*
In any case, we've already established that many countries have laws in place for the banning of books, which aren't employed very often but which are employed.
[ 17. December 2013, 21:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Would I ban a book that said witches must be put to death that was written at a time when putting witches to death was, in fact, lawful? No. Because it didn't satisfy my test when the book was published/written.
How do we change laws?
I don't personally believe that we should go around killing witches, but what if I did? How would I advocate for that?
By arguing for the merits of why it should be legal. Which is not the same as instructing your readers to do it and ignoring the fact that it isn't currently legal.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I believe the author of the book of the original post would describe it as a biblical extract with explication. That would put it in the "it's ok, it's historical" category of your tricky technical rules.
I must have missed the passage of the Bible that discusses plastic pipes.
The plastic pipe is described in the explication of the biblical text. Sadly, the actions described in the book were legal at the time and place of the writing and publication of the book. Otherwise the author could be arrested. So the book falls in your historical exemption category.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
By arguing for the merits of why it should be legal. Which is not the same as instructing your readers to do it and ignoring the fact that it isn't currently legal.
I wonder if a solution is to require a prominent notice on such books about the illegality. Unfortunately in some/many US jurisdictions I suspect the methods in the book when done by the parents are not illegal unless the child ends up dead or in hospital. See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1116234.html which is about a case in 2008 where the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that paddling a 12 year old 36 times with a maple paddle was not illegal under Minnesota law.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I believe the author of the book of the original post would describe it as a biblical extract with explication. That would put it in the "it's ok, it's historical" category of your tricky technical rules.
I must have missed the passage of the Bible that discusses plastic pipes.
The plastic pipe is described in the explication of the biblical text. Sadly, the actions described in the book were legal at the time and place of the writing and publication of the book. Otherwise the author could be arrested. So the book falls in your historical exemption category.
You appear to be giving the word 'explication' a very wide meaning indeed.
I also don't know where you got something about arresting authors from. Banning books is about preventing their sale and distribution, not about preventing them being written. This isn't thoughtcrime. You can have whatever sick twisted ideas you like as long as you don't encourage others to have them with you.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Let me just say I find this whole "it's all too hard" argument extremely peculiar. Anyone would think the USA didn't have a classification system. But I know for a fact you have one for films. I'm pretty sure there's one for computer games as well.
How do you think it works? People compare the material to a set of principles about what is and isn't acceptable for a given category. If material doesn't fit the requirements it has to go in a higher more restricted category.
All that happens in a system that allows material to be banned is that distribution of material above the very highest dividing line isn't allowed.
So it really isn't viable to argue that it's impossible to create rules to apply. Not unless you think the entire classification system should be scrapped.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All that happens in a system that allows material to be banned is that distribution of material above the very highest dividing line isn't allowed.
That's a very big "all that happens." It's a difference of kind not degree, and it's introducing something we've never done before, and something that goes against the First Amendment to our Constitution. Your "no big deal" analysis couldn't be farther off the mark.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All that happens in a system that allows material to be banned is that distribution of material above the very highest dividing line isn't allowed.
That's a very big "all that happens." It's a difference of kind not degree, and it's introducing something we've never done before, and something that goes against the First Amendment to our Constitution. Your "no big deal" analysis couldn't be farther off the mark.
I agree it's a big deal. But it's not a big deal for the reason that was given, ie that it's difficult to implement. It's a big deal as a matter of policy.
EDIT: it is perhaps worth mentioning that, partly because of division of powers between the federal government and the States, in the Australian system the ACT of classifying is completely separate from the CONSEQUENCES of a classification. The "it's all too hard" argument is directed at the act of classifying material, and it's clearly not too hard because it already happens. Changing the consequences of a classification is a totally separate policy question. If you wanted a rule that said NC-17 films could not be shown before 10pm, it would have no effect on the question 'what makes a film NC-17' whatsoever. If you wanted to ban NC-17 films, it still doesn't alter the nature of the criteria for deciding whether a film is NC-17. You could have a rule that NC-17 films can only be shown in black and white in lemon-scented cinemas, and it still has no effect on the classification rules.
[ 18. December 2013, 09:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Anyway, suggesting you don't ban stuff is also untrue. Child porn.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let me just say I find this whole "it's all too hard" argument extremely peculiar. Anyone would think the USA didn't have a classification system. But I know for a fact you have one for films. I'm pretty sure there's one for computer games as well.
But both rating systems are voluntary and enforced by a mutual agreement between most producers, distributors, and customers (or at least the customers' parents).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let me just say I find this whole "it's all too hard" argument extremely peculiar. Anyone would think the USA didn't have a classification system. But I know for a fact you have one for films. I'm pretty sure there's one for computer games as well.
But both rating systems are voluntary and enforced by a mutual agreement between most producers, distributors, and customers (or at least the customers' parents).
One wonders, then, why America's teenagers, and the filmmakers trying to appeal to them, continue to tolerate this interference with their civil liberties.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I believe the author of the book of the original post would describe it as a biblical extract with explication. That would put it in the "it's ok, it's historical" category of your tricky technical rules.
I must have missed the passage of the Bible that discusses plastic pipes.
The plastic pipe is described in the explication of the biblical text. Sadly, the actions described in the book were legal at the time and place of the writing and publication of the book. Otherwise the author could be arrested. So the book falls in your historical exemption category.
You appear to be giving the word 'explication' a very wide meaning indeed.
I also don't know where you got something about arresting authors from. Banning books is about preventing their sale and distribution, not about preventing them being written. This isn't thoughtcrime. You can have whatever sick twisted ideas you like as long as you don't encourage others to have them with you.
You were the one who said
quote:
Would I ban a book that said witches must be put to death that was written at a time when putting witches to death was, in fact, lawful? No. Because it didn't satisfy my test when the book was published/written.
but want to ban books advocating whipping children written at a time when it was legal to do so.
To carry on your logic, banning books that instruct you to kill witches would still let you have your sick twisted thought crimes about what is in the book. Since you don't think not being able to publish a book, or to speak aloud about the subject is not a deprivation as long as you can think about it, why would you possibly object?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let me just say I find this whole "it's all too hard" argument extremely peculiar. Anyone would think the USA didn't have a classification system. But I know for a fact you have one for films. I'm pretty sure there's one for computer games as well.
But both rating systems are voluntary and enforced by a mutual agreement between most producers, distributors, and customers (or at least the customers' parents).
One wonders, then, why America's teenagers, and the filmmakers trying to appeal to them, continue to tolerate this interference with their civil liberties.
Hollywood came up with the rating system to prevent various groups from imposing censorship. There's a documentary film worth watching called This film is not yet rated which pretty convincingly shows that tolerance for sex and violence by the ratings board is much higher for Hollywood studio films then for independent productions. The industry has captured the rating system and uses it to make it harder for independents to compete by making films that show sex.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let me just say I find this whole "it's all too hard" argument extremely peculiar. Anyone would think the USA didn't have a classification system. But I know for a fact you have one for films. I'm pretty sure there's one for computer games as well.
But both rating systems are voluntary and enforced by a mutual agreement between most producers, distributors, and customers (or at least the customers' parents).
One wonders, then, why America's teenagers, and the filmmakers trying to appeal to them, continue to tolerate this interference with their civil liberties.
Hollywood came up with the rating system to prevent various groups from imposing censorship. There's a documentary film worth watching called This film is not yet rated which pretty convincingly shows that tolerance for sex and violence by the ratings board is much higher for Hollywood studio films then for independent productions. The industry has captured the rating system and uses it to make it harder for independents to compete by making films that show sex.
Orfeo's point still stands. Why do Americans allow this violation of free speech by what amounts to a cartel to continue?
If they choose to accept a voluntary restriction on free speech, why don't they also choose to put a rating on a book that will prevent it being seen and force it out of the public eye?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Palimpsest I did NOT say I wanted to ban books advocating whipping children WHEN IT WAS LEGAL TO DO SO. Go back and read my posts again and it will be clear I said the exact opposite.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'd be curious to knowif there have been any challenges to the constitutionality of laws banning the distribution, possession or watching of child pornography. Surely someone caught with a library has argued that it's okay?
Sure, having sex with a child is illegal, and that might effect PRODUCTION, but why should the material, once produced, be illegal? It's all books and videos and protected speech, isn't it? So what if the act itself is criminal?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Palimpsest I did NOT say I wanted to ban books advocating whipping children WHEN IT WAS LEGAL TO DO SO. Go back and read my posts again and it will be clear I said the exact opposite.
You are correct that you didn't advocate banning books when it was legal. You did say it would be all right to ban books if using the instruction inevitably lead to law breaking. I don't think anyone has made that case given the range of laws. It may be illegal in the U.K. and some US states but not all.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be curious to knowif there have been any challenges to the constitutionality of laws banning the distribution, possession or watching of child pornography. Surely someone caught with a library has argued that it's okay?
Sure, having sex with a child is illegal, and that might effect PRODUCTION, but why should the material, once produced, be illegal? It's all books and videos and protected speech, isn't it? So what if the act itself is criminal?
The US laws against child pornography are based on the theory that production is illegal and owning it is being an accessory to that illegal activity.
The current court cases not only ban Child Pornography but any depiction of child sex. The laws on cartoon pornography depicting minors have been challenged and parts of the relevant law have been sometimes been upheld and sometimes declared constitutionally suspect.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sure, having sex with a child is illegal, and that might effect PRODUCTION, but why should the material, once produced, be illegal? It's all books and videos and protected speech, isn't it? So what if the act itself is criminal?
As Palimpsest says, you then become an accessory. You could say the same for owning a snuff movie, or for that matter just receiving stolen goods. Ownership of the product of a crime makes you an accessory to the crime.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
By that logic then all the US Government has to do is ban hitting children with weapons. The book then becomes illegal as it is advocating breaking the law. Ownership then also becomes illegal.
What are you waiting for?
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
By that logic then all the US Government has to do is ban hitting children with weapons. The book then becomes illegal as it is advocating breaking the law. Ownership then also becomes illegal.
What are you waiting for?
You do know that doesn't actually follow, don't you?
For every child you can point to that was abused by someone who read the book, you can point to considerably more who weren't. Whatever the law says about incitement, there is no direct 1:1 causal link between one and the other.
Whereas, you point to an instance of child porn and you know that a child was abused, somewhere. There is a direct causal link; one can't happen without the other.
(Except that actually it can with advances in CGI but that's another story.)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Iirc the passage about using 'the rod' on a child in Proverbs is about the 'rod of wisdom' or guidance, not a physical weapon. Like a shepherd's staff, a la Psalm 23.
Anyway, the Pearls and their horrific works have been known about for a while in anti-fundamentalist activism circles - their book about marriage for women is not quite as violent but still awful. Husbands are instructed to punish 'disobedient' wives.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Making corporal punishment illegal so as not to whip children still has a long struggle. It's wrapped up in the "The government can't tell me how to raise my children" attitude. In general this is overridden only in cases of extreme abuse.
Once you do succeed in making it illegal, you don't have to ban any book advocating it. You just arrest those who do it.
[ 19. December 2013, 23:28: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Iirc the passage about using 'the rod' on a child in Proverbs is about the 'rod of wisdom' or guidance, not a physical weapon. Like a shepherd's staff, a la Psalm 23.
quote:
Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell. (Proverbs 23:13-14)
So you're supposed to beat the child with a metaphorical rod of wisdom? How do you do that?
[ 19. December 2013, 23:35: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Once you do succeed in making it illegal, you don't have to ban any book advocating it. You just arrest those who do it.
You don't have to, no, but it comes back to my point about mixed messages. If an activity is illegal, why encourage your populace to think they can engage in the illegal activity by allowing them to purchase books designed to tell them how to engage in the illegal activity?
Maybe it's just my training (and in fact the same kind of point arises in what I was working on 5 minutes ago), but I don't see any value in encouraging people to take several steps down a path only to tell them the last step isn't possible. It's far better to tell them back at step 1 what the end result is going to be.
It's like placing a 'No Through Road' sign. We put them at the entrance to dead-end roads, at the point where someone would turn into the road. We don't put them at the spot where the road actually ends. Not if we're trying to be helpful to people and avoid trapping them in dead ends.
[ 20. December 2013, 01:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like placing a 'No Through Road' sign. We put them at the entrance to dead-end roads, at the point where someone would turn into the road.
Then half of them go down there anyway. just to check - (my street has one of those signs).
Huia
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Once you do succeed in making it illegal, you don't have to ban any book advocating it. You just arrest those who do it.
You don't have to, no, but it comes back to my point about mixed messages. If an activity is illegal, why encourage your populace to think they can engage in the illegal activity by allowing them to purchase books designed to tell them how to engage in the illegal activity?
Maybe it's just my training (and in fact the same kind of point arises in what I was working on 5 minutes ago), but I don't see any value in encouraging people to take several steps down a path only to tell them the last step isn't possible. It's far better to tell them back at step 1 what the end result is going to be.
It's like placing a 'No Through Road' sign. We put them at the entrance to dead-end roads, at the point where someone would turn into the road. We don't put them at the spot where the road actually ends. Not if we're trying to be helpful to people and avoid trapping them in dead ends.
When I was coming out, I found a lot of value in being able to read books that instructed me in all the finer details about sodomy in a time when it was largely illegal. I'm happy that I could do so even if the smart people saw no value in the book but were unable to ban it. That encouraged me to work on legalizing homosexual activity which has happened.
History shows that the people who see no value in letting other people read books about things of interest that may be illegal have been frequently wrong. Thanks for your offer to be helpful, but I find your alleged help of no value.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0