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

[Mountain Man]

This was obviously the motive behind this thread. It doesn't take a mind reader to see that you want everyone to shake their heads in wonder at those backwards conservatives who want to burn books (and films, art...).

But as CD and I showed, this sort of behavior is hardly found only among conservatives.

CD showed that even some of those on the left realize that their fellow travelers have a penchant for this sort of behavior. No surprise given that the left is the party of censorship, speech codes, "hate speech" (anything they don't like) and the cancel culture.

And I provided some examples of leftwing librarians, school districts and university professors not only calling for the destruction of books they don't like but actually doing it. That Canuckistani school district destroyed 4700 books and turned it into a little ritual where the participants could feel holier than thou and morally superior for engaging in that sort of behavior.

She cut the legs out from under her own tongue-clucking disapproval with her declaration of "Who is to say that your view is correct and mine is not?"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This was obviously the motive behind this thread. It doesn't take a mind reader to see that you want everyone to shake their heads in wonder at those backwards conservatives who want to burn books (and films, art...).

But as CD and I showed, this sort of behavior is hardly found only among conservatives.

CD showed that even some of those on the left realize that their fellow travelers have a penchant for this sort of behavior. No surprise given that the left is the party of censorship, speech codes, "hate speech" (anything they don't like) and the cancel culture.

And I provided some examples of leftwing librarians, school districts and university professors not only calling for the destruction of books they don't like but actually doing it. That Canuckistani school district destroyed 4700 books and turned it into a little ritual where the participants could feel holier than thou and morally superior for engaging in that sort of behavior.

[CivilDiscourse]

It doesn't take a mindreader to know you have yet to address ANY of the examples of liberal book banning/burning.

By the way, thank you for deciding to reference me and our "disagreement", thereby re-inviting me to this thread.

[CivilDiscourse]

But you made absolutely no attempt to figure it out from the context. That was the key. With that you should be able to whittle down the possibilities and ask if the remaining one is correct.

Its pretty much how kids learned since the beginning and still used for good reason.

And, it largely avoids the "Definition game", which is why I don't recall any time she has made that good faith effort.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

First of all, you declared that objective morality doesn't exist.

It doesn't. It only exists in the minds of those who believe they have it.

That premise can only lead to one conclusion: Anything goes.

This is where you are confused. You are mistaking morality for ethics.. Ethics deals with moral principles - not morality. Furthermore, Ethics as a branch of knowledge has nothing to do with religion. In a society an individual may hold to a morality that is different from the ethical position of that society. I suspect you do not share the USA's acceptance of SSM. However, that does not presuppose that SSM is wrong or that your view of SSM is right.

As you yourself have said, if morality is subjective, then who can say what is good and proper? It's in the eye of the beholder, right?

Not at all. To show a degree of tolerance and sensitivity towards other moral viewpoints does not require that the individual accept those moral viewpoints. And of course one can argue against those moral viewpoints by utilising an ethical argument.

Second, I don't much care what other groups who wave the Christian flag might advocate, because I have no obligation to defend their beliefs. I only need defend mine.

My point was to illustrate that a fellow Christian group in the USA has its own very definite view of what it believes to be "objective morality" and its belief that it is "standing on a rock solid moral foundation". That you consider you have no "obligation to defend their beliefs" can equally apply to other societal groups towards your own.

In other words you have demonstrated that your moral viewpoint is entirely subjective.

Finally, you claim that it is up to each person to decide for himself what he reads. Are you suggesting, then, that children should be given unrestricted access to sexually explicit material, leaving it up to them whether or not to read it?

That again that depends on what you consider to be "sexually explicit material".

I suspect that what I would deem perfectly acceptable reading matter for a 14 year old would not be the same as the material you would consider acceptable for a teen of those years.

Also bear in mind that certain images could be used for older teens to discuss concerns about coercion, trafficking, ethics of supply and demand, attitudes towards women, human psychology etc - depending on the subject for which those images were being used]. In such situations would those images be inappropriate?

However, if you are going OTT [which some have already done on this thread] and suggesting that what is generally termed "hardcore" pornography be accessible to young people as a form of gratification then I would agree that such images are not suitable.

She cut the legs out from under her own tongue-clucking disapproval with her declaration of "Who is to say that your view is correct and mine is not?"

As noted above your morality is neither objective nor absolute. Douglas Wilson and the Imams of Saudi and Iran also believe they have "objective morality" and that they too are "standing on a rock solid moral foundation".

Those who hold such views are entirely unable to accept that they be mistaken nor are they prepared to consider other viewpoints because they are convinced that they have "absolute knowledge".

[CivilDiscourse]

However, if you are going OTT [which some have already done on this thread] and suggesting that what is generally termed "hardcore" pornography be accessible to young people as a form of gratification then I would agree that such images are not suitable.

If you found "hardcore" (say Hustler magazine) in a grade 5-8 school library, would you want it removed?

[rogue06]

This was obviously the motive behind this thread. It doesn't take a mind reader to see that you want everyone to shake their heads in wonder at those backwards conservatives who want to burn books (and films, art...).

You never were the sharpest knife in the drawer were you?

[rogue06]

If you found "hardcore" (say Hustler magazine) in a grade 5-8 school library, would you want it removed?

Maybe it has changed since the last time I saw one (early 90s), but Hustler wasn't even hard core. Hard core FWIU is showing graphically explicit sex. Not simulated, not implied, but no detail left to the imagination. Real X-rated stuff.

That was what was found in some of the books on the school library shelves in Virginia.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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

The only difference being that the OP is dealing with attitudes towards literary works not necessarily images. And these parents express their concerns over primarily over "LGBTQIA” fiction". The most revealing aspect of those concerns was the suggestion by one parent [Mr Abuismail] that those books "should be thrown in a fire".

The desire to burn any fiction that does not sit with one's own viewpoint has a rather disturbing history. However, Mr Abuismail's later remark that schools “would rather have our kids reading gay pornography than about Christ” does give some idea of his own socio-political views.

[rogue06]

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

Precisely. Just because teens can get drugs from their friends doesn't mean that their parents should provide them.

[rogue06]

The only difference being that the OP is dealing with attitudes towards literary works not necessarily images. And these parents express their concerns over primarily over "LGBTQIA” fiction". The most revealing aspect of those concerns was the suggestion by one parent [Mr Abuismail] that those books "should be thrown in a fire".

The desire to burn any fiction that does not sit with one's own viewpoint has a rather disturbing history. However, Mr Abuismail's later remark that schools “would rather have our kids reading gay pornography than about Christ” does give some idea of his own socio-political views.

What sort of socio-political determinations can you make from those on the left who didn't just talk about burning books but went ahead and did it? Particularly the school district that turned the burning of 4700 books into a ritual so that those who participated could feel self-righteous about it?

[rogue06]

What sort of socio-political determinations can you make from those on the left who didn't just talk about burning books but went ahead and did it? Particularly the school district that turned the burning of 4700 books into a ritual so that those who participated could feel self-righteous about it?

It seems that leftists in Ontario have a thing for burning books. In 2019 another school board burned 30 copies of Asterix and the Indians because it contained "sexual savagery" by depicting indigenous women in short skirts (they explained that by having them wear short skirts that means they are "easy women"). And another 5000 books were targeted for destruction by other means.

Gotta wonder what socio-political readings H_A gets from that.

[Mountain Man]

It doesn't. It only exists in the minds of those who believe they have it.

This is where you are confused. You are mistaking morality for ethics.. Ethics deals with moral principles - not morality. Furthermore, Ethics as a branch of knowledge has nothing to do with religion. In a society an individual may hold to a morality that is different from the ethical position of that society. I suspect you do not share the USA's acceptance of SSM. However, that does not presuppose that SSM is wrong or that your view of SSM is right.


Not at all. To show a degree of tolerance and sensitivity towards other moral viewpoints does not require that the individual accept those moral viewpoints. And of course one can argue against those moral viewpoints by utilising an ethical argument.

My point was to illustrate that a fellow Christian group in the USA has its own very definite view of what it believes to be "objective morality" and its belief that it is "standing on a rock solid moral foundation". That you consider you have no "obligation to defend their beliefs" can equally apply to other societal groups towards your own.

In other words you have demonstrated that your moral viewpoint is entirely subjective.

That again that depends on what you consider to be "sexually explicit material".

I suspect that what I would deem perfectly acceptable reading matter for a 14 year old would not be the same as the material you would consider acceptable for a teen of those years.

Also bear in mind that certain images could be used for older teens to discuss concerns about coercion, trafficking, ethics of supply and demand, attitudes towards women, human psychology etc - depending on the subject for which those images were being used]. In such situations would those images be inappropriate?

However, if you are going OTT [which some have already done on this thread] and suggesting that what is generally termed "hardcore" pornography be accessible to young people as a form of gratification then I would agree that such images are not suitable.



As noted above your morality is neither objective nor absolute. Douglas Wilson and the Imams of Saudi and Iran also believe they have "objective morality" and that they too are "standing on a rock solid moral foundation".

Those who hold such views are entirely unable to accept that they be mistaken nor are they prepared to consider other viewpoints because they are convinced that they have "absolute knowledge".

Trying to divorce ethics from morality is nonsense. I think you're trying to debate above your paygrade here.

And so it comes down to this: you posted an article in your opening post with the obvious intent of criticizing those who choose to burn books, but everything you have argued since suggests that what they're doing is not objectively wrong, and therefore, you have no grounds to criticize them. You have your opinion about it, and they have theirs. The end. There's nothing else to discuss.

[Mountain Man]

You never were the sharpest knife in the drawer were you?

I believe you meant "sharpest lightbulb in the box".

[rogue06]

I believe you meant "sharpest lightbulb in the box".

Or little jimmy's "brightest bulb in the socket"