Library Idiocy

[PureX]

But the fact is that the government you speak of allows people to vote, and that' what they did.

So now you're back to the majority is always right. (especially when it agrees with you.)

Tyranny of the majority is why we don't live in a democracy, and why pure democracy doesn't work. It's why we have the Constitution and a Bill of Rights to protect the minority from the majority, and the individual from the mob. It's sad that the town officials in this case couldn't understand this. Or were too spineless to defend the ideal. Because it's fundamental to a free and equal society. This was exactly the kind of thing the founders were trying to guard against.

 

[paradox]

As per the DSM, a sexual desire doesn't become a paraphilia until it cause harm to others or self

You seem to have misunderstood something since you're equating paraphilia with sexual deviation,
according to APA which you so much admire classifies paraphilia as a form of sexual deviation - and defines the two differently (does not equate them)

What is sexual deviance?
What is paraphilia?

So now you're back to the majority is always right. (especially when it agrees with you.)

Tyranny of the majority is why we don't live in a democracy, and why pure democracy doesn't work. It's why we have the Constitution and a Bill of Rights to protect the minority from the majority, and the individual from the mob. It's sad that the town officials in this case couldn't understand this. Or were too spineless to defend the ideal. Because it's fundamental to a free and equal society. This was exactly the kind of thing the founders were trying to guard against.

You seem to be confusing 2 things:
1. When majority abuses minority (bad)
2. When majority peacefully votes for their rights (good)

 

[PureX]

You seem to have misunderstood something since you're equating paraphilia with sexual deviation,
according to APA which you so much admire classifies paraphilia as a form of sexual deviation.

What is sexual deviance?
What is paraphilia?


You seem to be confusing 2 things:
1. When majority abuses minority (bad)
2. When majority peacefully votes for their rights (good)

No, YOU are the one confusing them.

The purpose of the establishment of public libraries was/is to give the public equal access to the body of human knowledge that's available in books. But some people among the public, as always, want to control and limit other people's access to that body of information for their own advantage. Which is exactly the kind of thing that our LIMITED (constitutional) democracy is intended to disallow. And sadly, in this case, no one stood up for the rights of the minority to decide for themselves what books they should and shouldn't read. So the majority is now wrongly imposing their will on that minority. Which is the tyranny of a pure democracy that was explicitly being prohibited by the founders, by writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[paradox]

No, YOU are the one confusing them.

The purpose of the establishment of public libraries was/is to give the public equal access to the body of human knowledge that's available in books. But some people among the public, as always, want to control and limit other people's access to that body of information for their own advantage. Which is exactly the kind of thing that our LIMITED (constitutional) democracy is intended to disallow. And sadly, in this case, no one stood up for the rights of the minority to decide for themselves what books they should and shouldn't read. So the majority is now wrongly imposing their will on that minority. Which is the tyranny of a pure democracy that was explicitly being prohibited by the founders, by writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

OK, I see your point that democracy isn't perfect or that it isn't as their founders wanted to be, but don't people have the right to vote on what things will their money be spent?
It just doesn't make any sense that people pay for something which they find disturbing and dangerous for their youngest and then on top of that take their rights to peacefully vote on their own money be taken away from them.

Obviously democracy can't satisfy everybody by design, you either hurt this group of people or the other group of people, but you can't satisfy them both, it's logically impossible.

 

[PureX]

OK, I see your point that democracy isn't perfect or that it isn't as their founders wanted to be, but don't people have the right to vote on what things will their money be spent?
It just doesn't make any sense that people pay for something which they find disturbing and dangerous for their youngest and then on top of that take their rights to peacefully vote on their own money be taken away from them.

Obviously democracy can't satisfy everybody by design, you either hurt this group of people or the other group of people, but you can't satisfy them both, it's logically impossible.

We vote for people to represent our collective well-being. Not for them to do whatever we want them to do, for us. That means they decide when and where a bridge needs built, not us. And they decide what it costs in taxes, not us. Because we will decide not to pay for any bridges we don't need to cross over ourselves. We are innately selfish.

Same goes for things like public education and public libraries. People are selfish, and self-centered, and will push everything to their own advantage if they're able. It's why we create governments; to counteract that innate selfishness. And to protect all of us from the damage that selfishness does if it's not moderated.

It was the town official's responsibility to stand up to the majority and protect the right of every individual in their community to choose for themselves what books to read. And they failed. Just as all those voters failed their own community when they decided that they should decide for everyone else what books are appropriate to read. Democracy isn't selfishness run amok. It requires a mutual respect toward all citizens rights, equally, and for the government's right to act on our behalf, for it all to work.

 

[paradox]

We vote for people to represent our collective well-being. Not for them to do whatever we want them to do, for us. That means they decide when and where a bridge needs built, not us. And they decide what it costs in taxes, not us. Because we will decide not to pay for any bridges we don't need to cross over ourselves. We are innately selfish.

Same goes for things like public education and public libraries. People are selfish, and self-centered, and will push everything to their own advantage if they're able. It's why we create governments; to counteract that innate selfishness. And to protect all of us from the damage that selfishness does if it's not moderated.

It was the town official's responsibility to stand up to the majority and protect the right of every individual in their community to choose for themselves what books to read. And they failed. Just as all those voters failed their own community when they decided that they should decide for everyone else what books are appropriate to read. Democracy isn't selfishness run amok. It requires a mutual respect toward all citizens rights, equally, and for the government's right to act on our behalf, for it all to work.

Your vision of democracy sounds like "brave new world", which is extremely dangerous ideology for "collective well-being"

From the first paragraph of the novel, we learn the motto of the World State of Huxley’s imagination: "Community, Identity, Stability."

'Brave New World,' Plato's 'Republic,' and Our Scientific Regime (thenewatlantis.com)

btw. please keep in mind that the American Library Association has banned this book which is kind of funny since your position is that people must have freedom to decide for them self what to read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your vision of democracy sounds like "brave new world", which is extremely dangerous ideology for "collective well-being"

'Brave New World,' Plato's 'Republic,' and Our Scientific Regime (thenewatlantis.com)

btw. please keep in mind that the American Library Association has banned this book which is kind of funny since your position is that people must have freedom to decide for them self what to read.

When has the ALA ever banned Brave New World? Citation needed. You or your source may be confused.

The only thing that I found was that within the last ten years it was on their top ten list of books that people requested or demanded to be banned. Instead of doing that the ALA will often promote that book.:

Top 10 Most Challenged Books Lists

 

[PureX]

Your vision of democracy sounds like "brave new world", which is extremely dangerous ideology for "collective well-being"

'Brave New World,' Plato's 'Republic,' and Our Scientific Regime (thenewatlantis.com)

btw. please keep in mind that the American Library Association has banned this book which is kind of funny since your position is that people must have freedom to decide for them self what to read.

Who is "the American Library Association"? Sounds like some self-appointed lobbyists, to me.

And since when is our collective freedom NOT our collective responsibility to respect and protect? If you think this is some alien and dangerous concept, you need to do some serious re-assessing of your own ideals I think.

 

[paradox]

When has the ALA ever banned Brave New World? Citation needed. You or your source may be confused.

The only thing that I found was that within the last ten years it was on their top ten list of books that people requested or demanded to be banned. Instead of doing that the ALA will often promote that book.:

Top 10 Most Challenged Books Lists

According to American Library Association, Brave New World has frequently been banned and challenged in the United States

Brave New World - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Brave New World - Wikipedia

Perhaps you could quote it where it says that the ALA banned that book. I cannot seem to find it anywhere. Your quote that your used did not support you claim.

Perhaps you are having a problem with a bit of reading comprehension. Let me remind you, you said this:

"btw. please keep in mind that the American Library Association has banned this book <Brave New World>"

(words within the <> are mine).

 

[paradox]

And since when is our collective freedom NOT our collective responsibility to respect and protect? If you think this is some alien and dangerous concept, you need to do some serious re-assessing of your own ideals.

It's not so much about ideals as it is about dangers that may come out of utopian-style ideology.

I suppose you didn't read summary of the book from my link?

From the first paragraph of the novel, we learn the motto of the World State of Huxley’s imagination: “Community, Identity, Stability.”

In summary utopia leads to dystopia.

Perhaps you could quote it where it says that the ALA banned that book. I cannot seem to find it anywhere. Your quote that your used did not support you claim.

Perhaps you are having a problem with a bit of reading comprehension. Let me remind you, you said this:

"btw. please keep in mind that the American Library Association has banned this book <Brave New World>"

(words within the <> are mine).

Did I not quote wikipeida?

 

[PureX]

Your vision of democracy sounds like "brave new world", which is extremely dangerous ideology for "collective well-being"

It's not my vision of democracy. It's the vision of the nation's founders. That all men are created equal and therefor should have equal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of their own happiness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not so much about ideals as it is about dangers that may come out of utopian-style ideology.

I suppose you didn't read summary of the book from my link?


In summary utopia leads to dystopia.


Did I not quote wikipeida?

Yes, you quoted Wikipedia. It did not support your claim.

 

[PureX]

It's not so much about ideals as it is about dangers that may come out of utopian-style ideology.

There is nothing "utopian" about it. These are the ideals the founders of this country set forth and proposed that we live by.

Unfortunately, after 100 years of industrial strength commercial advertising, the American people all think everything in the world is for and about them, now. They think it's government's job to cater to their whims always and exclusively, and to hell with everyone else. Especially to hell with any minority that disagrees with them or stands in their way. We think our thoughts and feelings about any subject are always right and all that matters. So saith Madison Avenue. So saith Hollywood. So saith Fox News. So saith every pandering politician running for office. And of course so we tell ourselves. It's always the other citizen's job to accommodate OUR desires, isn't it. We don't like gay people, they make us uncomfortable, so they should all be forced to hide it from the world, so we don't have to see it! Right? THEY should be made to accommodate US. Always. Isn't that the thinking, here?

But that's not the society that the founders envisioned. They envisioned a society wherein all of us are free to be and do as we please, so long as we do not infringe the right of others to do the same. Because freedom isn't freedom if it's not afforded to everyone, equally. It's just oppression under a false label.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Says the ones so upset about this.

But not the one trying to ban books.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see you did absolutely no research on the subject.

That would be you. That poster is correct.
I'm a psychology major.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes they do but it takes almost entire childhood, until they surpass adolescence
Social and Personality Development in Childhood | Noba (nobaproject.com)

Children can be easily manipulated due to undeveloped personality, including influencing sexual orientation, on another side it's not easy to manipulate grown up people.


Yes they do harm to others which is considered immoral, I'm not sure what are we debating here because not all laws are strictly about harming or not harming someone while no laws are immoral in nature.


It's illegal to mastrubate in public even though it doesn't harm anyone, so why is it illegal then? see, it's not all about abuse and harming others, you think of morality as of some church dogma, but morality is much more than just that.


OK, your point is that harming others is criteria to law decision making, my point is that harming others is immoral.
However not all laws are about harming others while all the decision making regarding laws is directly affected on whether something is morally just or not simply because there is no such law today which is not morally correct.
An example, no need for one, there is no immoral law, all laws are morally just, excluding exceptions by mistake or political manipulation.



I have not said that gay relationship should be criminalized because I don't consider homosexuality to be a crime but rather mental disorder.

The American Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, The Australian Psychological Society, etc. all say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Because it's not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The American Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, The Australian Psychological Society, etc. all say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Because it's not.

But he has a dictionary!

 

[SkepticThinker]

knowledge is power.

Who is deciding what is taught?

Do we want a ministry of truth?

A great many people think Trump is flawless, others think Biden is honest.

Nothing is being taught. It's a library, not a school.

The "Ministry of Truth" people are the ones trying to ban books they don't like.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Off the rails agian.

What's "off the rails" about it?