|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A truly vile book that needs banning
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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 cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
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 may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
So would you ban a book that incited murder? A book that was saying something like "You shall not suffer a witch to live"?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
How can a book actually be banned since it will show up on the internet almost immediately after it is banned?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
