"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

[Mountain Man]

There is no objective morality!

And with that declaration, you have disqualified yourself as someone who is able to determine age appropriate reading material.

[Cow Poke]

As you are unprepared to define your terms feel free to leave the thread.

I think you're going to discover that the mods don't consider "refusal to be interrogated" as a legitimate reason to be tossed from a thread.

You really need to put this little tactic aside.

[Cow Poke]

I am now requesting you leave the thread.

Please note the actual rules pertaining to banning somebody from your thread.

News: Formal rule on banning people from your thread

11-09-2015, 01:58 PM
To all forum members:

There seems to be some confusion over who can ban - or be banned - from a thread. Please note the following guidelines:
1. The thread owner can limit who can participate in the first post. They can say "Only Christians" or "Only people who wear blue jeans" "no spamming" or whatever. IF they have a history of problems with certain posters, they may request that those people not participate. But this is not to be taken to extremes and can be denied by moderator decision if we believe it is being abused. In other words, you can't just use this power to keep any critics out of your thread so you can "win".

2. If the thread owner wishes to remove somebody from the thread because they are being disruptive or breaking the rules, he/she can ask them to stop, or leave the thread.
If the person who is asked to leave believes the request to be unreasonable, he can report the request for review. Otherwise, he/she should leave the thread.
If the person does not leave the thread, the thread owner can report the offender for moderator review.

(The ability to remove somebody from a thread should not be abused. It is for cases where the person is being disruptive, uncivil, trolling, or off topic. This is a debate forum. We want debate. This is not a blog site. All OP rules must apply equally to everyone in a thread. For example, if you say "no spam" and you let everyone spam but try to enforce it on only one person, then that will not be allowed.)

3. When a thread owner asks someone to leave, that person is entitled to ONE response, for the express purpose of acknowledging they are leaving - no other commentary or argument. If the thread owner mentions them or responds to that post, or even an earlier post by them, then the person banned can respond to that post and is no longer banned.
If you are caught breaking the rules of a thread ban, you will be moderated, receive infraction points as necessary, and all of your subsequent responses in the thread may be deleted. Of course, you may appeal to a moderator for reconsideration if you can prove your case, but we ask that you do so via private message and not in the thread. You may also start your own thread to respond if you choose.

Please pay particular attention to the parenthetical statement following 2 and preceding 3.

Thanks

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think you're going to discover that the mods don't consider "refusal to be interrogated" as a legitimate reason to be tossed from a thread.

You really need to put this little tactic aside.

Please note the actual rules pertaining to banning somebody from your thread.

News: Formal rule on banning people from your thread

11-09-2015, 01:58 PM
To all forum members:

There seems to be some confusion over who can ban - or be banned - from a thread. Please note the following guidelines:
1. The thread owner can limit who can participate in the first post. They can say "Only Christians" or "Only people who wear blue jeans" "no spamming" or whatever. IF they have a history of problems with certain posters, they may request that those people not participate. But this is not to be taken to extremes and can be denied by moderator decision if we believe it is being abused. In other words, you can't just use this power to keep any critics out of your thread so you can "win".

2. If the thread owner wishes to remove somebody from the thread because they are being disruptive or breaking the rules, he/she can ask them to stop, or leave the thread.
If the person who is asked to leave believes the request to be unreasonable, he can report the request for review. Otherwise, he/she should leave the thread.
If the person does not leave the thread, the thread owner can report the offender for moderator review.

(The ability to remove somebody from a thread should not be abused. It is for cases where the person is being disruptive, uncivil, trolling, or off topic. This is a debate forum. We want debate. This is not a blog site. All OP rules must apply equally to everyone in a thread. For example, if you say "no spam" and you let everyone spam but try to enforce it on only one person, then that will not be allowed.)

3. When a thread owner asks someone to leave, that person is entitled to ONE response, for the express purpose of acknowledging they are leaving - no other commentary or argument. If the thread owner mentions them or responds to that post, or even an earlier post by them, then the person banned can respond to that post and is no longer banned.
If you are caught breaking the rules of a thread ban, you will be moderated, receive infraction points as necessary, and all of your subsequent responses in the thread may be deleted. Of course, you may appeal to a moderator for reconsideration if you can prove your case, but we ask that you do so via private message and not in the thread. You may also start your own thread to respond if you choose.

Please pay particular attention to the parenthetical statement following 2 and preceding 3.

Thanks

My other half now owes me 5 euros.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And with that declaration, you have disqualified yourself as someone who is able to determine age appropriate reading material.

On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion? My view of what is or is not age appropriate may not be the same as your own but who is to say that your view is correct and mine is not?

[Mountain Man]

On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion? My view of what is or is not age appropriate may not be the same as your own but who is to say that your view is correct and mine is not?

Again, it's because I am able to defend the existence of objective morality while your beliefs can only lead to moral anarchy. Even your disapproval of book burning disappears in a hypocritical puff of smoke because who is to say that your view is correct, and the view of book burners is not?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Again, it's because I am able to defend the existence of objective morality while your beliefs can only lead to moral anarchy.

On the contrary you "defend" what you deem to be "objective morality". That is not quite the same thing.

Even your disapproval of book burning disappears in a hypocritical puff of smoke because who is to say that your view is correct, and the view of book burners is not?

So you think the Nazis had the right idea?

[Sparko]

My other half now owes me 5 euros.

Hey I can make a deal with you. If you want to kick out CD for refusing to answer to your demand to provide a definition, then you will have to leave every thread where someone demands you answer their questions of you and you ignore or refuse to from now on. Deal?

[Mountain Man]

On the contrary you "defend" what you deem to be "objective morality". That is not quite the same thing.

So you think the Nazis had the right idea?

The point seems to have gone over your head. You're objecting to book burning while hypocritically standing on a flimsy "anything goes" morality. I'm certainly not saying that your countrymen had the right idea, but then I'm standing on a rock solid moral foundation. You, on the other hand, have no grounds to call their actions into question because, as you say, "who is to say that your view is correct, and [theirs] is not?"

[rogue06]

Because the teens are viewing it on-line doesn't mean the libraries should be showing it.

Particularly school libraries.

[Cow Poke]

My other half now owes me 5 euros.

Because your other half thinks you should be exempt from the rules?

[rogue06]

The point seems to have gone over your head. You're objecting to book burning while hypocritically standing on a flimsy "anything goes" morality. I'm certainly not saying that your countrymen had the right idea, but then I'm standing on a rock solid moral foundation. You, on the other hand, have no grounds to call their actions into question because, as you say, "who is to say that your view is correct, and [theirs] is not?"

What is it about so many on the left who cannot fathom the logic of their positions? For them virtually everything is an "unforeseen consequence" and the like.

[tabibito]

What is it about so many on the left who cannot fathom the logic of their positions? For them virtually everything is an "unforeseen consequence" and the like.

Many a time I've tried to find a workable way to have censorship -

Never found one that didn't have the potential to become "cancel culture" within a month.

[seer]

You would need to define what you understand by "porn". Like beauty, pornography is usually to be found in the eye of beholder.

Explicit sex acts or reference thereof. But you would be OK with that for children. And since porn is in the eye of the beholder the parents in these districts are saying that this stuff is inappropriate. And who are you to argue?

Mein Kampf can now be purchased here. Books that deny historical facts are a different topic from novels which are the subject of the OP.

No it is not, you are still banning books - full stop, period.

[seer]

Many a time I've tried to find a workable way to have censorship -

Never found one that didn't have the potential to become "cancel culture" within a month.

So you really have a problem with banning pornography from school libraries?