Tuesday, July 12, 2011

What Books Would People Like to Ban?

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

We preserve works by Hitler, Marx, Stalin and Mao as a way to learn more about criminal minds who have unfortunately had an impact on human history.

Books by Beck, Palin and Coulter deserve to be lost, as they contribute nothing to the wealth of human intelligence and culture, nor will these individuals be remembered for their thoughtfulness or overall impact on the course of our species.

1:26 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Books by Beck, Palin and Coulter deserve to be lost, as they contribute nothing to the wealth of human intelligence and culture

Thank you for making clear that liberals and leftists simply don't believe in free speech.

Government has no right (nor do you) to decide what "contributes nothing" and then have it banned.

11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thank you for making clear that liberals and leftists simply don't believe in free speech."

The argument from anecdote fallacy strikes again.

7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Government has no right (nor do you) to decide what "contributes nothing" and then have it banned.

I never said that these books should be banned. I'm just stating the fact that Arguing With Idiots and Going Rogue will never become Penguin Black Books.

11:49 PM  
Blogger david said...

McAdams,

You recently took issue with what could be described as "a vigil" against campus rape as "lame," because they were protesting against something that everyone is against. Then you subsequently accused the University President of being not so concerned about rape. A strange contradiction, one made stranger still because now the shoe is on the other foot and you are gleefully taking an oh-so-easy stand against book-burning! What's with that? Well maybe the correlation doesn't hold water because not absolutely everyone is against book-burning, but then again, we mustn't forget what this blog has recently had to say about Fr. Wild, now can we? Come to think of it you should be on record apologizing to those protesters in front of Raynor Library after what this blog has recently had to say about Fr. Wild and the powers-that-be on campus!

2:17 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

You recently took issue with what could be described as "a vigil" against campus rape as "lame," because they were protesting against something that everyone is against.

I made a point of asking several of the protesters whether the demonstration was provoked by the way Marquette dealt with the four males accused of raping a woman, and was told "no, it's not."

But there is no doubt that Marquette is "against rape." The issue has been irresponsible handling of rape cases, and the apparent coddling of members of the basketball team.

The demonstration was just politically correct stuff, with bogus statistics about how 1/4 of college women have supposedly been raped.

It assumed that if we "raise consciousness" about rape that will fix things.

But it's not about consciousness. It's about punishing rapists.

9:43 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

I never said that these books should be banned.

OK, but in context, you seemed to be making apologies for people who would ban books.

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It assumed [by the protesters] that if we "raise consciousness" about rape that will fix things."

Wow. The straw man fallacy too

5:25 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Wow. The straw man fallacy too

No, that was indeed their point.

That's a superstition on the academic left. If we just raise the consciousness of everybody, that will fix the problem.

But rape is about guys who want sex and lack scruples about how to get it. It's silly to try to "raise their consciousness," unless that means convincing them that rape will get them imprisoned.

But for that to happen, the reality has to be that they are likely to get imprisoned.

4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, that was indeed their point."

No, it wasn't. It is indeed a straw man.

"That's a superstition on the academic left. If we just raise the consciousness of everybody, that will fix the problem."

It's got to be easy being a political scientist when you can just make stuff up.

5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for the sake of argument, if guys weren't clear about what constituted rape, and victims weren't either, then wouldn't teaching them, i.e., having a conversation about it, i.e., "raising awareness" be a worthwhile goal?

Someone could agree with that without thinking that consciousness raising would end rape. Right?

In fact, would this be part of, as you put it, "convincing them [guys] that rape will [or could] get them imprisoned [or at least prosecuted]"?

5:49 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

if guys weren't clear about what constituted rape

But guys know what real rape is. You force yourself on a woman who has said "no."

Guys may not know that if their drunken date consents, this is considered "rape." But of course, in such cases, the woman virtually never brings charges.

In fact, most women who have sex under these circumstances don't even define it as rape, and a large number go out again with the fellow who supposedly "raped" them.

The most important thing that could be done to deal with real rape would be for women to actually bring criminal charges.

But that's easier said than done.

Changing the culture of promiscuity, in which women will use alcohol and consent to sex rather casually, would help.

9:32 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home