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

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Trying to divorce ethics from morality is nonsense.

I am separating ethics from your personal subjective morality.

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.

I have criticised the various parent's attempt to impose their subjective morality on other people. and the dangerous comment by one parent that books of which he does not approve should be burned.

You have already made it clear that your own morality is entirely subjective with your comment on Wilson and Christ Church " 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".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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?

As with the anecdote about Calvin Coolidge commenting on the sermon he had just heard and his pastor's view of sin, I am against it.

[rogue06]

As with the anecdote about Calvin Coolidge commenting on the sermon he had just heard and his pastor's view of sin, I am against it.

A quick tepid response about those who actually burn books, because they're leftists.

Paragraph after paragraph of handwringing about a group talking about it, because they're conservative.

Yeah. It takes a mind reader.

[CivilDiscourse]

I have criticised the various parent's attempt to impose their subjective morality on other people. and the dangerous comment by one parent that books of which he does not approve should be burned.

So, you are saying that you oppose the parents attempts to create an ethical code. After all, ethics are really morality imposed by an outside force.

[seer]

I have criticised the various parent's attempt to impose their subjective morality on other people. and the dangerous comment by one parent that books of which he does not approve should be burned.

But if it is all in the eye of the beholder you have no rational ground to object to such parents.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But if it is all in the eye of the beholder you have no rational ground to object to such parents.

The books were not pornography. They were novels predominantly about "LGBTQIA” fiction".

And as I previously noted the particularly disturbing comment was made by Mr Abuismail - a parent - who considered that those books "should be thrown in a fire".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A quick tepid response about those who actually burn books, because they're leftists.

Paragraph after paragraph of handwringing about a group talking about it, because they're conservative.

Yeah. It takes a mind reader.

I am with Heine on the burning of books.

[CivilDiscourse]

The books were not pornography. They were novels predominantly about "LGBTQIA” fiction".

And as I previously noted the particularly disturbing comment was made by Mr Abuismail - a parent - who considered that those books "should be thrown in a fire".

And? You didn't qualify your opening statement and objections to exclude pornography. You made a general statement without qualifiers.

[Mountain Man]

I am separating ethics from your personal subjective morality.

I have criticised the various parent's attempt to impose their subjective morality on other people. and the dangerous comment by one parent that books of which he does not approve should be burned.

You have already made it clear that your own morality is entirely subjective with your comment on Wilson and Christ Church " 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".

If morality is subjective, then nothing is truly right or wrong, and ethics becomes meaningless.

subjective morality = subjective ethics = anything goes. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

You have your panties in a twist because someone is trying to impose their opinion on someone else, but why when it's not objectively wrong for someone to do so? If it's their opinion that they should impose their opinion, then who are you to say they're wrong?

[EvoUK]

If morality is subjective, then nothing is truly right or wrong, and ethics becomes meaningless.

subjective morality = subjective ethics = anything goes. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

You have your panties in a twist because someone is trying to impose their opinion on someone else, but why when it's not objectively wrong for someone to do so? If it's their opinion that they should impose their opinion, then who are you to say they're wrong?

You've gone through this before. We get it, you'd prefer morality to be objective (and it just so happens to line up with your own subjective morals, which is adorable), but you preferring morality to be objective doesn't mean that it is. Your argument is merely 'I think the idea of subjective morality sucks, so therefore it can't be true'.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You've gone through this before. We get it, you'd prefer morality to be objective (and it just so happens to line up with your own subjective morals, which is adorable), but you preferring morality to be objective doesn't mean that it is. Your argument is merely 'I think the idea of subjective morality sucks, so therefore it can't be true'.

Dr Jacob Bronowski made a valid point about those who consider they have "absolute knowledge".

“There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy.”

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If morality is subjective, then nothing is truly right or wrong, and ethics becomes meaningless.

As previously noted your morality is subjective and is no more "objective" than the subjective morality of an Iranian Imam.

Which of you has the correct and "objective" morality?

[seer]

The books were not pornography. They were novels predominantly about "LGBTQIA” fiction".

And as I previously noted the particularly disturbing comment was made by Mr Abuismail - a parent - who considered that those books "should be thrown in a fire".

The question is do these book reference explicit sex acts? If they do they are not appropriate for children. And you have no rational grounds to object to my objection. It is all in the eye of the beholder - right...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The question is do these book reference explicit sex acts?

I have no idea but I suspect not.

If they do they are not appropriate for children.

And you have no rational grounds to object to my objection. It is all in the eye of the beholder - right...[/QUOTE]

As the answer to your first question is unknown to either of us the rest of your post is irrelevant.

[rogue06]

I have no idea but I suspect not.

As I already noted the illustrations are so explicit as to be hard core X-rated. So much so even censoring the image wouldn't be enough to permit me to post them here.

In this case it consists of things like a POV of a man looking down at another man kneeling in front of him while the latter performs oral sex on him. Absolutely nothing is left to the imagination. It is extremely explicit and graphic.

Given that was addressed to you I suspect your memory is faulty.